PDA

View Full Version : Reply to the people who think the DLC is a rip off



Leagance
02-07-2010, 11:49 AM
I just wanted to thank Ubisoft for taking the time to make the DLC because i enjoy playing AC2 and the story line of it.
For anyone who thinks there getting ripped off why don't you put it in the perspective of they are giving you something to keep you busy while you wait for AC3. Thats how i look at it. yah maybe it shoulda been with the game but i like the suspense on waiting to find out what the next DLC has to offer. Shoot if they came out with 8 more DLC for the next 8 months i would buy them just because i enjoy the game. So what i am trying to say is instead of saying they are ripping us off just enjoy the DLCs and have fun.

lazynicole
02-07-2010, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by Leagance:
I just wanted to thank Ubisoft for taking the time to make the DLC because i enjoy playing AC2 and the story line of it.
For anyone who thinks there getting ripped off why don't you put it in the perspective of they are giving you something to keep you busy while you wait for AC3. Thats how i look at it. yah maybe it shoulda been with the game but i like the suspense on waiting to find out what the next DLC has to offer. Shoot if they came out with 8 more DLC for the next 8 months i would buy them just because i enjoy the game. So what i am trying to say is instead of saying they are ripping us off just enjoy the DLCs and have fun.

Amen to that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

TreFacTor
02-07-2010, 06:31 PM
TECHNICALLY, they didn't "make" download content, they just omitted 2 unnecessary, or "filler" chapters, and dropped them on us as a "pacifier". They could have done better! No $4 isn't asking alot for DLC, but $70 is too much to pay for a complete game. Which is what the DLC does, it completes the game and to add to that, download content is created separate from the game, and UBI didn't do this, they basically feed us scraps off the cutting room floor.

silversnake4133
02-07-2010, 10:41 PM
Adding to what TreFacTor said, it is a bit much to ask for, especially in this economy. Not only that but not everyone has the money to go out and buy cables and modems/routers for their systems plus network subscription fees just so they can get what's left of the "incomplete" game they bought for full price. And that's not including the maps and missions that are only available through a "one use only" password found in the Limited Black and White editions of the game.

All in all DLC is great for ADD-ONS ONLY. Because now it just seems that Ubisoft is scamming people for money. And for what, an extra hour or two of gameplay that should have been included in the game in the first place?

They like to claim that it is more of an "experience" with the DLC and Uplay, well the only thing I'm "experiencing" is a case of the disappointment flu especially since Assassin's Creed II was such an amazing game.

senile old coot
02-08-2010, 12:30 AM
If the release of the DLCs had never been planned, i do not think i would have been much aggrieved by the missing sequences. i don't remember screaming ''omg ripoff!'' when Rebecca said ''aww noor corrupt sequenceees'' (not a quote but go with it). this is because i view AC2 as a perfectly substantial game in total absense of the sequences (therefore i am inclined to agree with the OP).

As for pricing, if the sequences are so widely regarded as ''unnecessary'', then why do so many people seem to believe that it is their obligation to buy them (and that they are therefore being scammed for money)? it doesn't really make sense tbh.

caswallawn_2k7
02-08-2010, 05:55 AM
Not only that but not everyone has the money to go out and buy cables and modems/routers for their systems plus network subscription fees
a cheap router you can get for under £20, you can get a network lead for about £1 and you dot need to pay for Xbox live and since your posting here I'm going to assume you already have a internet connection, so lets say you can set up for about £20, now the average game costs £40 (standard editions) so I don't see how you cant afford half the price of a game to get your console online if you can afford to keep buying new games.

silversnake4133
02-08-2010, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
a cheap router you can get for under £20, you can get a network lead for about £1 and you dot need to pay for Xbox live and since your posting here I'm going to assume you already have a internet connection, so lets say you can set up for about £20, now the average game costs £40 (standard editions) so I don't see how you cant afford half the price of a game to get your console online if you can afford to keep buying new games.

Yeah, I was working off some frustration while posting that reply after I learned all that is DLC. I don't have a very good paying job and I can only afford games every so often (maybe every 4 to 6 months) unless I get generous tips from my customers. Thanks for the pricing notes, even though I don't live in the UK. But I can always convert totals. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Climbmaster1
02-08-2010, 02:00 PM
It is sort of a rip off if you think about it because you can only play it once. But 400 points would be a good deal if you could play it multiple times. People pay 300 points for an Avatar outfit!

bokeef04
02-08-2010, 04:08 PM
you say how we are being ripped off by ubisoft and oh it's so bad, but it's no different to any other DLC, Army of Two for example, was on PSN and noticed that it now has extra levels, which means i no longer have a "complete" game(i co-op with a friend on his PS3 and he doesn't have a compatible internet connection) same goes for GTA4 and Fallout, yet no-one seems to think they are unfair

AgentValentine
02-08-2010, 04:45 PM
At least when I bought DLC from Monolith (Fear 2) I got to replay it, LOL!

((Edit: Oh yeah, and then there's Valve who gives me huge updates and new missions for L4D for free. BUT YOU KNOW, 4 dollars for half an hour of content that I can't even choose to go back and replay. That's perfectly fair!)

commandguy
02-08-2010, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by bokeef04:
you say how we are being ripped off by ubisoft and oh it's so bad, but it's no different to any other DLC, Army of Two for example, was on PSN and noticed that it now has extra levels, which means i no longer have a "complete" game(i co-op with a friend on his PS3 and he doesn't have a compatible internet connection) same goes for GTA4 and Fallout, yet no-one seems to think they are unfair

As far as GTA4 goes, the "episodes" had nothing to do with the main GTA4 story. They were genuine add-ons with seperate storylines.
The AC2 DLC however, adds two missing sequences to one and the same storyline.
That's a difference.

caswallawn_2k7
02-08-2010, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by commandguy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bokeef04:
you say how we are being ripped off by ubisoft and oh it's so bad, but it's no different to any other DLC, Army of Two for example, was on PSN and noticed that it now has extra levels, which means i no longer have a "complete" game(i co-op with a friend on his PS3 and he doesn't have a compatible internet connection) same goes for GTA4 and Fallout, yet no-one seems to think they are unfair

As far as GTA4 goes, the "episodes" had nothing to do with the main GTA4 story. They were genuine add-ons with seperate storylines.
The AC2 DLC however, adds two missing sequences to one and the same storyline.
That's a difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
if they had left out the numbers 11 and 12 and changed the order making the DLC's 13 and 14 would you of noticed any difference in the story? (the answer would be no because you didn't miss them when you didn't have them other than the numbers)

the DLC's play no part in the story and are not needed, it's just Ubi decided to place them before the final block, as why would you be following progression missions after the assassins have stopped monitoring your progress? also if they placed them after block 14 it would screw up the time line.

SneakyStabz
02-08-2010, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:

if they had left out the numbers 11 and 12 and changed the order making the DLC's 13 and 14 would you of noticed any difference in the story? (the answer would be no because you didn't miss them when you didn't have them other than the numbers)

the DLC's play no part in the story and are not needed, it's just Ubi decided to place them before the final block, as why would you be following progression missions after the assassins have stopped monitoring your progress? also if they placed them after block 14 it would screw up the time line.

You answered your own question and contradicted yourself at the same time. YES you would miss them and yes they are important parts of the main story line. Without them you don't ever realize that Ezio lost the Apple of Eden and until the next DLC2, you don't know how he gets the Apple back or what the Map you acquired is used for?

Edit: I guess you do get the Apple back, still, in my opinion the additional content did not add much play time to the game, and was made purely to get more money... the flying machine was added to quite people who didnt get the flyswatter achievement... period, there is no other point to including it!

My comments on the DLC1 from another topic, since I was too lazy to retype it!

And while we are on the subject of DLC, in my opinion the first DLC was a complete EPIC FAIL! (Spoiler Alert) DLC1 only added about an hour of play time and when I finished it, it was done and couldnít be replayed...LAME! I paid $4, which is about what a weekly rental would have cost, for 1 hour of game play and an irritating addition to the story line. Ezio runs through 6 quick missions, loses the Apple of Eden and gains a Map that you canít use or access at all, I'm guessing until the next DLC comes out! Once you beat it your left standing in the mountains confused and bored again. The addition of the flying machine "special memory" only adds a few minutes of play time and really highlights the fact that you canít replay previous missionsÖ but hey at least everyone can get stop complaining about not getting the flyswatter achievement, cause thatís whatís really important right!?

AgentValentine
02-08-2010, 06:44 PM
I'm just sick of people justifying paying for DLC by saying "WELL, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T GET IT."

Well, then I'm missing out on main points of the story, main things that happened in the Renaissance. Do I blame the people in Ubisoft who developed and coded the game? No. Do I blame the corporate hogs trying to make another buck or two off me? Ayuh.

silversnake4133
02-08-2010, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
And while we are on the subject of DLC, in my opinion the first DLC was a complete EPIC FAIL! (Spoiler Alert) DLC1 only added about an hour of play time and when I finished it, it was done and couldnít be replayed...LAME! I paid $4, which is about what a weekly rental would have cost, for 1 hour of game play and an irritating addition to the story line. Ezio runs through 6 quick missions, loses the Apple of Eden and gains a Map that you canít use or access at all, I'm guessing until the next DLC comes out! Once you beat it your left standing in the mountains confused and bored again. The addition of the flying machine "special memory" only adds a few minutes of play time and really highlights the fact that you canít replay previous missionsÖ but hey at least everyone can get stop complaining about not getting the flyswatter achievement, cause thatís whatís really important right!?

Well said. DLC can be great for some occasions, like adding little bits and pieces here and there to freshen up a game, but selling an incomplete game for full price and then slowly reintroducing the "corrupted" data in DLC not only screws over people who don't have their systems connected to the internet, but would then have to wait an "x" amount of months for all of the missing content to become available. Let's face it people, it's a scam for them to make more money. Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.

AgentValentine
02-08-2010, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by silversnake4133:
Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.

This. This times a billion.

SneakyStabz
02-08-2010, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by silversnake4133:
Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.

I edited my original post in this thread because I kinda remember picking the Apple of Eden up off a guy I killed, but I dont remember if it was the second twin guy that stabbed me, or if it was the monk in black that picked it up that time. I say you get the Apple back, but I wish I could just replay the DLC again and get my facts straight... to bad no mission replay was added with the DLC right? I mean you paid extra to play through these memories, shouldnt you be able to at least replay the extra content you purchased after the fact?

SWJS
02-08-2010, 08:55 PM
Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.
I find this statement funny. You CAN replay the DLC, but you have to replay the entire game to do so. I don't see why so many people are all "blasphemy!" over it, since if you liked the game anyway, you'd enjoy playing it.

This is why I dislike complaint threads that are all "AC2 is liek totally the best gaem evar, but UBISOFT HOW DARE YOU RELEASE THIS ELDRICH ABOMINATION UPON ME EVEN THOUGH IT'S MORE AC2, AND IT'S CHEAP! Wah wah wah!"

The DLC is 3-4 dollars. If you have a job, this is nothing that will kill you. I'm poor living off a simple check and I could afford the DLC no problem. In this economy, 3-4 dollars for an entire half hour of gameplay is basically handing the DLC to you on a silver platter.

Also, there was no reason to have the DLC in the game, they really add nothing to the plot other than "O hai Ezio got the POE stolen but he got it back the end."

It's really nothing to complain about. Sure not being able to replay missions is annoying, but AC2 is a very good game, and playing through it again is not going to kill you, and they might as well just hand it to you for only 3-4 dollars.

Bottom line, it's DLC, just like all other DLC. Be happy you're getting anything extra at all. Ubi could have just scrapped the DLC, there's no law saying they have to release DLC.

In my honest opinion, if I were a dev an my so called fans were giving me a hard time, I wouldn't be nice and throw in any extra stuff. Like my mother did to me: "If you pitch a fit for the toy, you don't get the toy."

When gas goes into the triple digits and they begin selling candy bars at a million, then you can claim "rip off!"

TreFacTor
02-08-2010, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by bokeef04:
you say how we are being ripped off by ubisoft and oh it's so bad, but it's no different to any other DLC, Army of Two for example, was on PSN and noticed that it now has extra levels, which means i no longer have a "complete" game(i co-op with a friend on his PS3 and he doesn't have a compatible internet connection) same goes for GTA4 and Fallout, yet no-one seems to think they are unfair I have to correct you regrading GTA IV, Rockstar absolutely puts most developers to shame when it comes to DLC... Ballad of Gay Tony,, and Lost and Damned, could have been separate games, and each only cost $20. They added multiplayer modes, new characters, and new vehicles. That's how you do DLC! The 2 DLC for Assassins Creed are just missing chapters, that have no real bearing on the story. Sorta like not knowing that George Washington crossed the Delaware, in the American revolution... you could omit that fact, and still be aware of the outcome of the story all the same.

TreFacTor
02-08-2010, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by commandguy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bokeef04:
you say how we are being ripped off by ubisoft and oh it's so bad, but it's no different to any other DLC, Army of Two for example, was on PSN and noticed that it now has extra levels, which means i no longer have a "complete" game(i co-op with a friend on his PS3 and he doesn't have a compatible internet connection) same goes for GTA4 and Fallout, yet no-one seems to think they are unfair

As far as GTA4 goes, the "episodes" had nothing to do with the main GTA4 story. They were genuine add-ons with seperate storylines.
The AC2 DLC however, adds two missing sequences to one and the same storyline.
That's a difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually both of the characters from the Lost and the Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony cross paths with Niko Bellic from GTA IV, their in the cut, and aren't profiled, but that's what makes the DLC story lines even better, because once you have played them, you remember scenes from GTA IV, that were interwoven into the two additional dlcs, and added about 10 hours of gameplay and achievements! RockStar should be held on a pedestal as an example of how developers should do DLC.

I know this is a bit OT, but I consider the DLC to be a rip off, and I'm certainly not buying ASSASSINS CREED 2.0 Multiplayer edition... does anyone think that's a rip off also, or am I completely alone on that one?

SWJS
02-08-2010, 09:55 PM
I have to correct you regrading GTA IV, Rockstar absolutely puts most developers to shame when it comes to DLC... Ballad of Gay Tony,, and Lost and Damned, could have been separate games, and each only cost $20. They added multiplayer modes, new characters, and new vehicles. That's how you do DLC! The 2 DLC for Assassins Creed are just missing chapters, that have no real bearing on the story. Sorta like not knowing that George Washington crossed the Delaware, in the American revolution... you could omit that fact, and still be aware of the outcome of the story all the same. You do realise that GTA IV itself was an overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob, right? They took out every element that made GTA fun, adding in a phone on which everyone calls you every five minutes. Could I go blow up cars with a tank? No, and even if I could, I'd have to use it to drive some schmuck around first. The DLC only adds story, nothing truly new. I know TLATD added a grenade launcher, but it's basically the same as an RPG launcher, only with a time delayed explosion, allowing people to run away better. BOGT has a few colors, in the form of club lights. But New York is still grainy and bland.

All GTA IV's DLC does is add on more missions, so it's really no better than AC2's DLC.

SneakyStabz
02-08-2010, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.
I find this statement funny. You CAN replay the DLC, but you have to replay the entire game to do so. I don't see why so many people are all "blasphemy!" over it, since if you liked the game anyway, you'd enjoy playing it. THAT IS THE POINT, People dont want to have to play through 20 hours just to show their friends five minutes of certain levels lol... personally I dont think starting a new game is at all the same as being able to "replay the DLC"

This is why I dislike complaint threads that are all "AC2 is liek totally the best gaem evar, but UBISOFT HOW DARE YOU RELEASE THIS ELDRICH ABOMINATION UPON ME EVEN THOUGH IT'S MORE AC2, AND IT'S CHEAP! Wah wah wah!" This is why I dislike fanboy comments that only irriate other people having an open discussion

The DLC is 3-4 dollars. If you have a job, this is nothing that will kill you. I'm poor living off a simple check and I could afford the DLC no problem. In this economy, 3-4 dollars for an entire half hour of gameplay is basically handing the DLC to you on a silver platter. If your that poor how did you afford an xbox or ps3, additionally that same $3-$4 could have paid for a weeks worth of game rentals, so no charging that price for "an entire half hour of gameplay" is not handing the DLC out on a silver platter... stuff on silver platters is usually free!

Also, there was no reason to have the DLC in the game, they really add nothing to the plot other than "O hai Ezio got the POE stolen but he got it back the end." Did he get it back, its hard to remember since i cant replay the mission lol?

It's really nothing to complain about. Sure not being able to replay missions is annoying, but AC2 is a very good game, and playing through it again is not going to kill you, and they might as well just hand it to you for only 3-4 dollars. I agree, AC2 is an awesome game, but that doesnt mean people cant complain about its flaws, whatever they might perceive them to be... and no "they might as well NOT just hand it to me for $3-$4 since is should have been included with the game, as intended, as with every other game including AC1

Bottom line, it's DLC, just like all other DLC. Be happy you're getting anything extra at all. Ubi could have just scrapped the DLC, there's no law saying they have to release DLC.

In my honest opinion, if I were a dev an my so called fans were giving me a hard time, I wouldn't be nice and throw in any extra stuff. Like my mother did to me: "If you pitch a fit for the toy, you don't get the toy." IF you were a dev, I wouldnt buy your game, and with that attitude most other people wouldnt either... if we dont buy the game they go broke and have to find a new job... and charging for extra stuff isnt the same as being nice and throwing it in!

When gas goes into the triple digits and they begin selling candy bars at a million, then you can claim "rip off!" How does gas and candy bar prices corrilate, and what does it have to do with this topic, even remotely? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you think its fun replaying the whole game to get back to the DLC then have at, but dont tell me I'm whinning for thinking it should be replayable! Your argument is almost as failed as leaving replay out lol!

TreFacTor
02-08-2010, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have to correct you regrading GTA IV, Rockstar absolutely puts most developers to shame when it comes to DLC... Ballad of Gay Tony,, and Lost and Damned, could have been separate games, and each only cost $20. They added multiplayer modes, new characters, and new vehicles. That's how you do DLC! The 2 DLC for Assassins Creed are just missing chapters, that have no real bearing on the story. Sorta like not knowing that George Washington crossed the Delaware, in the American revolution... you could omit that fact, and still be aware of the outcome of the story all the same. You do realise that GTA IV itself was an overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob, right? They took out every element that made GTA fun, adding in a phone on which everyone calls you every five minutes. Could I go blow up cars with a tank? No, and even if I could, I'd have to use it to drive some schmuck around first. The DLC only adds story, nothing truly new. I know TLATD added a grenade launcher, but it's basically the same as an RPG launcher, only with a time delayed explosion, allowing people to run away better. BOGT has a few colors, in the form of club lights. But New York is still grainy and bland.

All GTA IV's DLC does is add on more missions, so it's really no better than AC2's DLC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your obviously miffed that PS3 owners didn't get the dlc because you don't have all of teh facts regrading the dlc, In Lost and damned, you primarily played on hogs, and they gave new biker gang weapons, in Gay Tony, they added a tank and rocket shooting helicopter as well as parachutes. Your entitled to your opinion on that, but the facts remain the same GTAIV dlc is exemplary compared to AC2.

SneakyStabz
02-08-2010, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by TreFacTor:


I know this is a bit OT, but I consider the DLC to be a rip off, and I'm certainly not buying ASSASSINS CREED 2.0 Multiplayer edition... does anyone think that's a rip off also, or am I completely alone on that one?

I read the next game (AC2.5,AC2.0 Multiplayer, AC: Discovery,whatever its called but stated not to be Assassins Creed 3) was supposed to include the Original AC2, plus additional story lines as well as multiplayer modes... IF that's true then YES, TOTAL RIP OFF!!! Its like what AC2 should have been if they had waited to release it... it probably includes mission replay too lol... but to be honest I have only read a little bit about it and cant really say at the moment.

Oatkeeper
02-08-2010, 11:32 PM
The way I see it I payed around just as much for the DLC as I did for a full costume avatar item.

is the DLC worth more than an avatar, hell yes. Its a a great deal considering the price of alot of stuff on XBL/PSN

SneakyStabz
02-08-2010, 11:49 PM
I can see your point Oathkeeper, though I cant say I downloaded the costume http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif. But it still irritates me that I have gotten more gameplay out of the free rachet and clank demo, then I got out of the $3.99 DLC.

SWJS
02-08-2010, 11:50 PM
Your obviously miffed that PS3 owners didn't get the dlc because you don't have all of teh facts regrading the dlc, In Lost and damned, you primarily played on hogs, and they gave new biker gang weapons, in Gay Tony, they added a tank and rocket shooting helicopter as well as parachutes. Your entitled to your opinion on that, but the facts remain the same GTAIV dlc is exemplary compared to AC2.
You could endlessly ride motorcycles in the original game, so I don't exactly see how that adds more to the game. I suppose "biker gang weapons" means knives, bats, chains, brass knuckles, etc. Those weapons have nothing on flamethrowers and chainsaws, or satchel charges. The weapons are once again, still limited, unimagitive, and there's no variety. Even if Gay Tony sadds a tank and rocket shooting helicopter, I doubt the tank is the stereotypical military shell lancher, and they still should have been in the actual game instead of being tacked on for more money, which is exactly what AC2 fans are complaining about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Even if GTA IV's DLC adds more stuff, it's stuff that should have been in the game in the first place. Making it no different than the AC2 DLC, other than the fact we get more gameplay for a very cheap price.

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

Even if GTA IV's DLC adds more stuff, it's stuff that should have been in the game in the first place. Making it no different than the AC2 DLC, other than the fact we get more gameplay for a very cheap price.

Well this is not a GTA forumn and even though you called this 2008 Game of the Year award winner a "overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob," I'll still tell what the difference is, cause I think you are missing what people are trying to say.

The addons for GTA were release almost a full year later, and "should NOT have been in the game in the first place." They were added because people loved the game so much Rockstar gave us MOAR! for a small fee. AC2 addon content was planned in advance of release and was not new content but rather scenes cut out of the game and sold back to us 3 months later. This content "was an overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob," and "it's stuff that should have been in the game in the first place."

Additionally, I own GTA4 and I assure you that you can replay it all you like, just load any previously saved game and your right where you saved. With AC2 the addons are one and done, play it and then hope some day they implement the replay feature... if not, have fun playing through the whole game again to see it!

SWJS
02-09-2010, 01:27 AM
Well this is not a GTA forumn and even though you called this 2008 Game of the Year award winner a "overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob," I'll still tell what the difference is, cause I think you are missing what people are trying to say.
The addons for GTA were release almost a full year later, and "should NOT have been in the game in the first place." They were added because people loved the game so much Rockstar gave us MOAR! for a small fee. AC2 addon content was planned in advance of release and was not new content but rather scenes cut out of the game and sold back to us 3 months later. This content "was an overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob," and "it's stuff that should have been in the game in the first place."
GTA IV did not deserve that award. Rockstar paid them off. That's the only reason it got good scores. The entire is an overrated, bland, colorless, un-fun, repetative gray blob. GTA SA was two hundred times more fun, and had better characters. Rockstar also planned out their DLC, it only took longer because they were addming more missions and a few tinker toys. The small fee bit made me laugh, since GTA's DLC was ten times more expensive than AC2's DLC. The only reason people like the game is because they are simply parroting what the critics say to look like a real game. Trust me. One video review on youtube just copied a GTA review. AC2's DLC added more interesting stuff, including unlimited flying machine use, which many people whined for. GTA's DLC only brought a few weapons and a couple vehicles, which sould have been in the game in the first place.
Additionally, I own GTA4 and I assure you that you can replay it all you like, just load any previously saved game and your right where you saved. With AC2 the addons are one and done, play it and then hope some day they implement the replay feature... if not, have fun playing through the whole game again to see it! GTA IV is no different than AC2. You can reload from any save and be at your next mission, but you can't replay select missions in the main game. As for the DLC, if you liked the game, just play through the game again. It's not that big of a deal. It won't kill you. I honestly couldn't care about GTA IV's DLC because it adds nothing new in terms of weapons and vehicles, and it's still bland, un-fun, and gray. Still boring, still less replay value. AC2 has far more side missions and collectables. I would rather assassinate people than go bowling, or out to dinner.

With GTA IV, I still have to replay the main game to do certain missions. Considering 90% of them are annoying chase missions, I would rather assassinate people and fly on a flying machine. I would be more than happy replaying AC2, because it is a far more entertaining experience.

caswallawn_2k7
02-09-2010, 02:14 AM
also GTA 4 DLC didn't actually add much to the game, 90% of the weapons, costumes and vehicles from the DLC got activated in the PC version using only the files that came in the original game, so all they really did was charge you to unlock stuff on the disc you purchased for full price. how can you use the GTA4 DLC to argue things shouldn't be held back when the majority of the GTA4 DLC's were in the game disc on launch.

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

GTA IV did not deserve that award. Rockstar paid them off. That's the only reason it got good scores.

The only reason people like the game is because they are simply parroting what the critics say to look like a real game. Trust me.

One video review on youtube just copied a GTA review. AC2's DLC added more interesting stuff, including unlimited flying machine use, which many people whined for. GTA's DLC only brought a few weapons and a couple vehicles, which sould have been in the game in the first place.

GTA IV is no different than AC2. You can reload from any save and be at your next mission, but you can't replay select missions in the main game. As for the DLC, if you liked the game, just play through the game again.

still less replay value. AC2 has far more side missions and collectables. I would rather assassinate people than go bowling, or out to dinner.


Virtually all of your comments in this thread are off topic, and your whole defense is that addon content for GTA should have already been there, and is boring and uninventive, thus AC2 content should be ok, since you found fun?

Playing through the whole game is not a reasonable way to "replay" extra content, if you think so then have fun at it... I find redoing the same stuff the same way over and over again very boring and dont consider it fun.

When you asked the members of this community to help make you a sig pic, you should have asked for it to say "AC #1 Fanboy". Your basic argument has been to compare AC content to other games and tell people their complaints are invalid because you dont mind the things you even said were "annoying"... IF you really are a writer and do reviews on youtube I hope you learn to see other peoples perspective without having to result to comments like....

GTA IV did not deserve that award. Rockstar paid them off. Its your opinion and its slanderous, and also has no bearing on this topic!

The only reason people like the game is because they are simply parroting what the critics say to look like a real game... Doesn't really make sense and shows you dont respect others opinions.

GTA IV is no different than AC2. You can reload from any save and be at your next mission Here you are just completely wrong and its sad you cant see it... You can NOT load any save from AC2, since there is only one, the "autosave"... Show me how to load ANY other save, aside from the current one and I'll delete my account from this forum!!!

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
how can you use the GTA4 DLC to argue things shouldn't be held back when the majority of the GTA4 DLC's were in the game disc on launch.

I didn't post the original GTA4 comparison, and still dont know why it matters. Microsofts Xbox got exclusive rights for a set time and the addons are still not available at all for the PS3... How this is relevant for DLC's for assassins creed 2, why should I expect more/less/same results form Ubisoft... dont know... does adding chapters 11 & 12 after I've beat 13 & 14 make sense? Does it appear that these chapters were removed from the original game and sold back to me later? Should $3.99 content be replayable without starting the whole game over, should it last more than an hour? Did they add the flying machine for fun, or so people could get the achievement with out starting over? Did Ezio get the Apple back, or was it the twin that stabbed me and the monk that took it, cant replay to find out? I'll ask differently, in YOUR opinion what would have made the DLC better, or are you a fanboy that says the game is 100% perfect and all criticism is invalid?

Either way I give up...

As for DLC2 I'll probably pay $5 and write it off as a learning mistake, still foolishly hoping they will patch the mission replay, add some new weapons, outfits, "cool stuff". I know there will be a few exclusive levels added that came with limited editions... it wont be "new content" or impact the story but hey.

As for AC2.5 Multiplayer, you know the next release that not AC3... Doubt I play it or pay $60 for it... this probably is what most people were hoping DLC would be all about, and it probably should be, or should have been, included with AC2.

And AC3 I'll rent first, if it has mission replay I'll try and find a use copy... but hey if they implement their new DRM service on console games you wont be able to get used copies... lol in fact, if DRM was implemented on console games, you probably couldnt even rent them anymore??

O well, fell free to start the flamethrowers! Im out, Ill stop back from time to time to see if EzioTheAssassin has posted any more riveting threads about "what it would look like if Ezio and Desmond had and love child", and "what if the truth is really the truth and this game is Pandoras box, and by playing it you really open the seventh seal of the apocalypse" Oh wait, "what if Ezio, Desmond, and Subject 16 are all really reincarnations of Adam!!" The possibilities of fictions are endless, dont hurt yourself while musing through them...

Laterz all! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Grandmaster_Z
02-09-2010, 06:51 AM
instead of concentrating on DLC, why can't ubi concentrate on making missions replayable?

TreFacTor
02-09-2010, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
also GTA 4 DLC didn't actually add much to the game, 90% of the weapons, costumes and vehicles from the DLC got activated in the PC version using only the files that came in the original game, so all they really did was charge you to unlock stuff on the disc you purchased for full price. how can you use the GTA4 DLC to argue things shouldn't be held back when the majority of the GTA4 DLC's were in the game disc on launch. The pc version of gta did not have the extra dlc content, but modders can add what they didn't get with original. The DLC for the lost and damned and gay tony were over 2 gigs each.
@EzioTheAssassin---
With GTA IV, I still have to replay the main game to do certain missions. Considering 90% of them are annoying chase missions, I would rather assassinate people and fly on a flying machine. I would be more than happy replaying AC2, because it is a far more entertaining experience.
with gay tony you can replay any mission once you have completed the game! With GTAIV you can save whenever, and where you want as long as your not on a mission, with Assassins creed, you have a save point, and can't go back, your facts are misconstrued. It may not be fair to compare the 2 games or their DLC, but rather as an example in terms of value, it is clear that neither of you liked GTA IV, but there are numerous other examples that could be given to support the fact that Assassins creed 2 dlc (missing chapters) should have been included in the game, and new dlc created.

caswallawn_2k7
02-09-2010, 12:00 PM
The pc version of gta did not have the extra dlc content, but modders can add what they didn't get with original. The DLC for the lost and damned and gay tony were over 2 gigs each.
nearly every single model from the lost and damned is in the PC files because there was a massive thing surrounding it as it was all there and just needed enabling leading people to believe the DLC's would be coming for PC.

as for 2 gig it's not really a lot of file size it's only about 40minuets of 1080p video with 5.1 sound.

TreFacTor
02-09-2010, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The pc version of gta did not have the extra dlc content, but modders can add what they didn't get with original. The DLC for the lost and damned and gay tony were over 2 gigs each.
nearly every single model from the lost and damned is in the PC files because there was a massive thing surrounding it as it was all there and just needed enabling leading people to believe the DLC's would be coming for PC.

as for 2 gig it's not really a lot of file size it's only about 40minuets of 1080p video with 5.1 sound. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I have searched and searched for information regarding your claims, and have not found anything with the exception of both DLCs coming to pc and ps3 March 30... if the content was already available in the pc release, then why would they need to release a pc version of the dlc?

SteelCity999
02-09-2010, 12:38 PM
I thought this was an AC forum not an GTA one.....anyway.

The DLC is alot better deal than some others that charge $10 for less gameplay. The original game was about $1.50 per hour of gameplay which is pretty good these days. I'm not complaining very much. However, I would like to see some extra content in a dlc that is new and makes use of what we got during the game. But this will probably be included in the AC 2.5 that is coming out.

Jack-Reacher
02-09-2010, 02:54 PM
How could something this cheap be a rip off

SWJS
02-09-2010, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
Virtually all of your comments in this thread are off topic, and your whole defense is that addon content for GTA should have already been there, and is boring and uninventive, thus AC2 content should be ok, since you found fun?

Playing through the whole game is not a reasonable way to "replay" extra content, if you think so then have fun at it... I find redoing the same stuff the same way over and over again very boring and dont consider it fun.

When you asked the members of this community to help make you a sig pic, you should have asked for it to say "AC #1 Fanboy". Your basic argument has been to compare AC content to other games and tell people their complaints are invalid because you dont mind the things you even said were "annoying"... IF you really are a writer and do reviews on youtube I hope you learn to see other peoples perspective without having to result to comments like....

GTA IV did not deserve that award. Rockstar paid them off. Its your opinion and its slanderous, and also has no bearing on this topic!

The only reason people like the game is because they are simply parroting what the critics say to look like a real game... Doesn't really make sense and shows you dont respect others opinions.

GTA IV is no different than AC2. You can reload from any save and be at your next mission Here you are just completely wrong and its sad you cant see it... You can NOT load any save from AC2, since there is only one, the "autosave"... Show me how to load ANY other save, aside from the current one and I'll delete my account from this forum!!! I don't see how my comments in this thread are off-topic, since I AM discussing the AC2 DLC in some way.

It's a perfectly reasonable way to re-experience content. If you like the game as much as you say you do, that what does replaying the whole thing hurt? Certainly non-replayable missions is annoying, but there's nothing stopping you from replaying the game to replay a mission. If you want it badly enough, all you have to do is get it.

I love the fact you use the "fanboy" comment to try and intimidate and insult me. You are enssentially saying that my liking AC2 and disliking GTA IV makes me an AC fanboy. What makes you any different? You feel the need to come on the forum and show extreme dislike for a minor annoyance, and your defense that "GTA IV's DLC adds on more" does not justify your end of the argument or make you any more right, it just shows that you are a GTA fanboy. Not to mention the fact you edited a previous post of mine and put words in my mouth, making me look like some hiddeous troll, which wasn't exactly a patriotic act. Being a writer and critic I judge games based on their sole importance: fun. I know the difference between fun, and un-fun. AC2 was original, colorful, and more varied, and it's DLC is in no way a rip off, since it offered more gameplay at a fairly cheaper price. GTA IV was unoriginal, dark, and non-varied. I would have had more fun with it if it had more than two sets of boring weapons and more varied missions. It's DLC brought nothing new to the party, and left little to be desired. Many games like GTA IV are overrated, such as MW2. GTA IV's DLC was expensive for something that offered very little in terms of new gameplay.

Actually it's been proven. Many game developers pay off critics to sugar-coat games. One magazine actually accused Ubisoft of this, but it was proven false. I don't see how it's slanderous, since it has been proven. EA, THQ, Rockstar, they all do it.

Fact: much of the GTA fanbase has directly made the argument "Gamespot/IGN/X-Play said GTA IV was the best game ever, so it's the best game ever." I truly respect the opinions of others. If you actually liked GTA IV, then more power to you. But when you parrot the words of other critics as an argument defending the game, that isn't stating your opinion, it is repeating the opinion of another. I have my opinions and I will be honest with them, I will not parrot a critic in defense of a game I like.

AC2 offers 3 save slots. Therefore you can play on any of them and load any of them. GTA IV offers around 30-40 of these, but they take up a lot of space, but yes, you could reload any save and be at any specific point in the game, provided you had saved a game on a load slot. Even with this, you still have to replay the main story to re-experience a certain mission, making it no different than AC2.

So yes, thank you for going more off topic and accusing me of being slanderous just to defend GTA IV and it's DLC. I appreciate the hypocrasy.

Originally posted by Jack-Reacher:
How could something this cheap be a rip off My thoughts exactly.

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 05:12 PM
You ARE a fanboy, NOTHING anyone says will have merit in you mind, and I have given up on this topic...The fact your still saying the same thing, and miscostruing facts to make your point should prove mine.

Again, I did NOT start the comparisons to GTA4 and would say its not even close to my favorite, honestly I like AC2 more, even with its flawS! lol

The only reason I bother to reply is to assure you I did NOT "edit" your post... I added my comments to your post so I wouldn't start a quote tree... I also struck parts to save space... Your words are as they where written by YOU, my words are in bold print, or added after the fact!

loveboof
02-09-2010, 05:25 PM
There's nothing wrong with DLC being planned before release.

But it doesn't matter if we can all afford it or not, because the only reasonable price for this kind of DLC is 'free'. Why can't companies reward loyal fans as a motive in itself? (or simply to maintain interest in the time between games?)

The significant retail price of games grants huge profits, so to see naive idiots coming on here and actually thanking ubi for 'taking the time to make the DLC' really makes me disappointed.

SWJS
02-09-2010, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Especially since the missions can't be replayed whenever.
I find this statement funny. You CAN replay the DLC, but you have to replay the entire game to do so. I don't see why so many people are all "blasphemy!" over it, since if you liked the game anyway, you'd enjoy playing it. THAT IS THE POINT, People dont want to have to play through 20 hours just to show their friends five minutes of certain levels lol... personally I dont think starting a new game is at all the same as being able to "replay the DLC"

This is why I dislike complaint threads that are all "AC2 is liek totally the best gaem evar, but UBISOFT HOW DARE YOU RELEASE THIS ELDRICH ABOMINATION UPON ME EVEN THOUGH IT'S MORE AC2, AND IT'S CHEAP! Wah wah wah!" This is why I dislike fanboy comments that only irriate other people having an open discussion

The DLC is 3-4 dollars. If you have a job, this is nothing that will kill you. I'm poor living off a simple check and I could afford the DLC no problem. In this economy, 3-4 dollars for an entire half hour of gameplay is basically handing the DLC to you on a silver platter. If your that poor how did you afford an xbox or ps3, additionally that same $3-$4 could have paid for a weeks worth of game rentals, so no charging that price for "an entire half hour of gameplay" is not handing the DLC out on a silver platter... stuff on silver platters is usually free!

Also, there was no reason to have the DLC in the game, they really add nothing to the plot other than "O hai Ezio got the POE stolen but he got it back the end." Did he get it back, its hard to remember since i cant replay the mission lol?

It's really nothing to complain about. Sure not being able to replay missions is annoying, but AC2 is a very good game, and playing through it again is not going to kill you, and they might as well just hand it to you for only 3-4 dollars. I agree, AC2 is an awesome game, but that doesnt mean people cant complain about its flaws, whatever they might perceive them to be... and no "they might as well NOT just hand it to me for $3-$4 since is should have been included with the game, as intended, as with every other game including AC1

Bottom line, it's DLC, just like all other DLC. Be happy you're getting anything extra at all. Ubi could have just scrapped the DLC, there's no law saying they have to release DLC.

In my honest opinion, if I were a dev an my so called fans were giving me a hard time, I wouldn't be nice and throw in any extra stuff. Like my mother did to me: "If you pitch a fit for the toy, you don't get the toy." IF you were a dev, I wouldnt buy your game, and with that attitude most other people wouldnt either... if we dont buy the game they go broke and have to find a new job... and charging for extra stuff isnt the same as being nice and throwing it in!

When gas goes into the triple digits and they begin selling candy bars at a million, then you can claim "rip off!" How does gas and candy bar prices corrilate, and what does it have to do with this topic, even remotely? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
1. Yet you can, which is why I don't see how it is such a problem with people who like playing AC2. I want replayable missions as much as the next person, but it doesn't stop me from enjoying replaying AC2 again.

2. Ironic, since I find that statement irritating and offensive. I don't care if you disagree with me or have your own opinion, but there's no reason to insult me or push my buttons.

3. Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion. But you do realize that all DLC is included on the disc, and it is unlocked with either a code or internet purchase?

4. As for how I obtained an xbox 360, I saved up for one. It took me 2 years, but I did get one.

5. I wouldn't care. If my fans want to treat me like dirt, then they'll get a taste of their own medicine. And even if I did lose fans, I would still have loyal fans and a way of making money.

6. Gasoline and Candy bars are both consumer items, just like Video Game. $4 a gallon is considered an insane price, but as we continue to burn up fossil fuels, that price will continue to rise. $4 is nothing compared to the prices we'll have in a decade, making all gas a potential ripoff. As for candy bars, most people conside 50 cents to be the fair price for a candy bar. I've seen some stores sell them for up to $5 dollars. For just one candy bar, $5 is far too much. Considering how expensive most DLC is, we got AC2's for only $4, instead of $10-$15. It is therefore a much more fair price than many people claim it to be. Just because it doesn't add a feature you want, doesn't make it a rip off.

And as I learned in Economics, nothing is truely free. No matter where or when they are, someone somewhere is paying for things we get for free, whether it be the owner, manufacturer, worker, etc.

And if many of you would consider this, perhaps the money you all pay for the DLC will go towards adding in the replay feature with DLC number 2?

We never get anything for free. Lottery money and money for roads etc. is all taken from the taxes we pay, so you're actually contributing to the lottery you want to win so badly. It's all tax money.

In my opinion, if the DLC should be free, then where would Ubisoft get the money to work on adding a replay feature, since most of the money made from AC2 itself will go towards AC3 and paychecks? Or do you just expect them to magically make it happen because you say so?


Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
You ARE a fanboy, NOTHING anyone says will have merit in you mind, and I have given up on this topic...The fact your still saying the same thing, and miscostruing facts to make your point should prove mine.

Again, I did NOT start the comparisons to GTA4 and would say its not even close to my favorite, honestly I like AC2 more, even with its flawS! lol

The only reason I bother to reply is to assure you I did NOT "edit" your post... I added my comments to your post so I wouldn't start a quote tree... I also struck parts to save space... Your words are as they where written by YOU, my words are in bold print, or added after the fact! I still find it amuzing that you would use the fanboy insult against me. You claim it is wrong to be slanderous, yet you constantly point and yell "You're a fanboy." Do you have any idea how immature it makes you look?

Yes, yet you insist on coming onto the forum, claiming a $4 DLC a ripoff when it is in fact cheaper than a game rental, and insult the fans. I'll have you know I lost interest in AC2 a month ago. I've been playing Halo, The Sims, and GTA SA instead.

Okay, so you changed the last sentence of the second paragraph and bold it, yet you left my words alone? Right.

O well, fell free to start the flamethrowers! Im out, Ill stop back from time to time to see if EzioTheAssassin has posted any more riveting threads about "what it would look like if Ezio and Desmond had and love child", and "what if the truth is really the truth and this game is Pandoras box, and by playing it you really open the seventh seal of the apocalypse" Oh wait, "what if Ezio, Desmond, and Subject 16 are all really reincarnations of Adam!!" The possibilities of fictions are endless, dont hurt yourself while musing through them... I found the other fanboy comments amusing, but that was just plain low.
But it doesn't matter if we can all afford it or not, because the only reasonable price for this kind of DLC is 'free'. Why can't companies reward loyal fans as a motive in itself? (or simply to maintain interest in the time between games?) As I stated before: "And as I learned in Economics, nothing is truely free. No matter where or when they are, someone somewhere is paying for things we get for free, whether it be the owner, manufacturer, worker, etc.

And if many of you would consider this, perhaps the money you all pay for the DLC will go towards adding in the replay feature with DLC number 2?

We never get anything for free. Lottery money and money for roads etc. is all taken from the taxes we pay, so you're actually contributing to the lottery you want to win so badly. It's all tax money.

In my opinion, if the DLC should be free, then where would Ubisoft get the money to work on adding a replay feature, since most of the money made from AC2 itself will go towards AC3 and paychecks? Or do you just expect them to magically make it happen because you say so?"

"Yes, we should get the DLC for free, even though getting it for free is denying us the things we ask for, so we'll just blame Ubisoft for being stupid and lazy and stop buying their games, that'll show them!" - It is that exact mindset that is ruining the gaming industry.

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

Okay, so you changed the last sentence of the second paragraph and bold it, yet you left my words alone? Right. Yes, I left your words alone, re-read your post, MY comments are in BOLD!

I found the other fanboy comments amusing, but that was just plain low. The slam was intentional, all you have done is flame this tread...

SWJS
02-09-2010, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

Okay, so you changed the last sentence of the second paragraph and bold it, yet you left my words alone? Right. Yes, I left your words alone, re-read your post, MY comments are in BOLD!

I found the other fanboy comments amusing, but that was just plain low. The slam was intentional, all you have done is flame this tread... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>1. <STRIKE>I know what I wrote. The last sentence of the one paragraph was CHANGED.</STRIKE>
After having another look, I have realised my mistake, and apologize.

2. I have done no such thing. The only thing I have done is state my opinion, yet YOU have decided to put words in my mouth and insult me. If ANYONE is flaming, it is YOU. I never did anything to antagonize you, yet from the very start you have done nothing but insult me and call my statements failures.

loveboof
02-09-2010, 08:21 PM
I don't know where you are from, but here in the UK our taxes do not contribute to the lottery payout. 50% of the tickets bought are what constitute the prize money.

In the example I gave I suggested 2 possible scenarios where it would be a mutually beneficial idea to offer the DLC for 'free'.

Also you've ignored the last part of my post (which really should have negated your response), where I highlighted the huge profits gained from the initial sales. This being 'profit' means that it more than covers the expenses. (did you learn that in economics?)

And actually if DLC was treated as a promotional/advertising endeavor similar to a demo of an upcoming game, then it could be covered by the funds set aside for publicity.

SWJS
02-09-2010, 08:33 PM
I am from the US.

But nothing IS free. Even if you obtain it without paying, someone still ends up paying for it.

Yes, but you forget that Ubisoft has to pay countless employees and is working on more than just one game. Game development is a very expensive process, not including the expenses in hiring voice actors. Despite the massive amounts of profits they make, developers are still on a budget and a deadline. It doesn't matter how big the profit is, there are still many expensive things that those profits must go toward in order to keep the company and industry running. You have to spend money to make money, only in the case of game developement, you have to spend millions to make millions.

DLC isn't promotional material. It is an actual part of the game, and takes time to develop too. Therefore, developers need some way of re-obtaining the money that went into it, for many reasons, including going into other projects.

loveboof
02-09-2010, 08:46 PM
Every time I have said free it has been like this: 'free'.

Shouldn't that really suggest to you that there is something implicit going on in the sentence a little outside of the words?
___

The money that goes into DLC (that has been made at the same time as the game) is recovered by the profits of the game sales.

And I know DLC is not promotional material, but if the reason behind it wasn't purely financial it could be viewed in many different ways given new motives for its existence.

[If you add up every expense in the process of making AC2, then compare it to the income it has generated what do you think you will see?]

bokeef04
02-09-2010, 09:01 PM
i suppose Ubisoft could have avoided all this by just delaying the game till they had completed the two DLC segments, but then you would all complain about it being delayed, Ubisoft are in a lose lose situation as whatever they try to do ends up being criticized by some

delay all three till DLC was done - people complain about delay and lack of DLC

don't delay - people complain about the DLC being extra and them cutting parts from the game to make more money

loveboof
02-09-2010, 09:09 PM
omg.

@bokeef: What about mysterious and apparently mind baffling option 3 where the DLC is 'free'??

SWJS
02-09-2010, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by loveboof:
Every time I have said free it has been like this: 'free'.

Shouldn't that really suggest to you that there is something implicit going on in the sentence a little outside of the words?
___

The money that goes into DLC (that has been made at the same time as the game) is recovered by the profits of the game sales.

And I know DLC is not promotional material, but if the reason behind it wasn't purely financial it could be viewed in many different ways given new motives for its existence.

[If you add up every expense in the process of making AC2, then compare it to the income it has generated what do you think you will see?] Even if it appears free to you, someone is still paying for it. I don't know how the economy works in the UK, but in the US, the economic system is one big intertwined web of money. When something is obtained free, it affects someone else's role in the economy, no matter where they are, which is exactly why theft and piracy destroy the economy.

Millions of dollars goes into developing games. How high the profits are depends on the success of the products. Successful games may rake in more than was put into the game, mediocre games may rake in about the same, and as we know, a game that flops will of course hurt the company.

The equipment, such as computers and motion cameras, people, and money that go into developing a game aren't cheap.

It depends on the company, but most DLC is already on the game disc when it is released, unlocked by code or online purchase. Most of the time, the money gained is used in developing extra(external) DLC, or go into another game. So, if a game is good, it pays for the paychecks of all the developers, and the other games in progress. Developers can do more with more money.

It is the same with other businesses. The more money made, the better the machinery that makes the product, the better the product. It's a simple concept, but it determines whether a company becomes successful, or bankrupt, and whether you know it or not, it affects everyone with money.

Originally posted by bokeef04:
i suppose Ubisoft could have avoided all this by just delaying the game till they had completed the two DLC segments, but then you would all complain about it being delayed, Ubisoft are in a lose lose situation as whatever they try to do ends up being criticized by some

delay all three till DLC was done - people complain about delay and lack of DLC

don't delay - people complain about the DLC being extra and them cutting parts from the game to make more money Exactly, which proves you will never be able to please everyone, and that many will never ever be grateful for any concession you make.

Such is the way of big business.

loveboof
02-09-2010, 09:47 PM
I've used apostrophes around the word free since my 1st post in this thread to preempt this whole discussion you have run with.

I fully realise that the DLC has cost something to make, but there are reasons why it could be mutually beneficial for the DLC to be released free of charge (which is pivotal on its purpose - i.e if its purpose is to make more money it will not be free).

___

If I ripped out a few pages from a book, sold it to you, and then a week later offered you the missing section for a small additional fee - you would not be too happy.

I think the whole concept of DLC is brilliant, but it shouldn't be used like this.

___

Anything can be a 'rip off', regardless of the sums of money involved - but what you have to realise is that it is us who assign the value to the things we buy, and the more ******* customers who will keep dipping into their pockets the more the charges will keep coming!

Would you be happy to pay extra for essential game patches that fix bugs? Try to think ahead a little..

bokeef04
02-09-2010, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by loveboof:
omg.

@bokeef: What about mysterious and apparently mind baffling option 3 where the DLC is 'free'??

option 3 is much like option 2, people will still complain and say it should have been included in the original game and that they got an incomplete game

the fact still remains that as soon as you add DLC you add something to the game that maybe not everyone can get, free or not(my friend e.g doesn't have a compatible internet connection to connect to PSN)

and if DLC can be free why can't LIVE, why does Microsoft need to have LIVE Gold which costs money?

Loveboof, realize that i would like it to be free aswell, but i can't change it, and I'm happy with that, I've accepted that they will charge for it, i find it completely unreasonable for the local cinema(only one in town) to charge $3 extra for 3d movies and want the glasses back at the end but i still have to pay it if i want to see the movie, no amount of complaining will fix that.

EzioTheAssassin is the only one who seems to have gotten the point of my post, which is that no matter what Ubisoft does they wont please everyone, and they would realise this but they try to reach that happy medium

SWJS
02-09-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by loveboof:
I've used apostrophes around the word free since my 1st post in this thread to preempt this whole discussion you have run with.

I fully realise that the DLC has cost something to make, but there are reasons why it could be mutually beneficial for the DLC to be released free of charge (which is pivotal on its purpose - i.e if its purpose is to make more money it will not be free).

___

If I ripped out a few pages from a book, sold it to you, and then a week later offered you the missing section for a small additional fee - you would not be too happy.

I think the whole concept of DLC is brilliant, but it shouldn't be used like this.

___

Anything can be a 'rip off', regardless of the sums of money involved - but what you have to realise is that it is us who assign the value to the things we buy, and the more ******* customers who will keep dipping into their pockets the more the charges will keep coming!

Would you be happy to pay extra for essential game patches that fix bugs? Try to think ahead a little..
Fair enough.

This is true. Though to be fair, Ubisoft did lower the price to just $4. Considering the prices of most DLC, AC2's DLC is extremely cheap.

This is also true, but one must realize that society will never change, and neither will the economic cycle. Though, in any given person's mind, a rip off is less of a product obtained for more money, so naturally this is the most widely accepted definition.

Many games and DLC today are rip offs, as well as many of the technological products. Unless you are rich beyond your wildest dreams, you wont get a lot of the best equipment. This is why I approve of the AC2 DLC. It's cheaper than the DLC of other games, which makes it more accessable.

While I would enjoy free DLC and Xbox Live, I would be able to afford it if it were simply cheaper, and if it were cheaper, I would be perfectly happy with it. DLC truly becomes a rip-off at 10-15 dollars in my opinion.

Originally posted by bokeef04:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by loveboof:
omg.

@bokeef: What about mysterious and apparently mind baffling option 3 where the DLC is 'free'??

option 3 is much like option 2, people will still complain and say it should have been included in the original game and that they got an incomplete game

the fact still remains that as soon as you add DLC you add something to the game that maybe not everyone can get, free or not(my friend e.g doesn't have a compatible internet connection to connect to PSN)

and if DLC can be free why can't LIVE, why does Microsoft need to have LIVE Gold which costs money?

Loveboof, realize that i would like it to be free aswell, but i can't change it, and I'm happy with that, I've accepted that they will charge for it, i find it completely unreasonable for the local cinema(only one in town) to charge $3 extra for 3d movies and want the glasses back at the end but i still have to pay it if i want to see the movie, no amount of complaining will fix that.

EzioTheAssassin is the only one who seems to have gotten the point of my post, which is that no matter what Ubisoft does they wont please everyone, and they would realise this but they try to reach that happy medium </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, I've known about it for a long time. Even before Economics class, though the class did open my eyes.

In the words of Yahtzee Crowshaw: "Fans are clingy complaining dipspits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make."

There's no pleasing everyone.

Though I do admire Ubisoft's persistence in pleasing the fans, despite how much ire they give them.

SneakyStabz
02-09-2010, 11:29 PM
Your ignorance is shocking and I still have no idea where your "facts" come from! I want to leave it alone, its off topic and pointless, but I feel its important to illustrate why you need to do more research before you just blurt out "facts", especially as a "writer"!

"We never get anything for free. Lottery money and money for roads etc. is all taken from the taxes we pay, so you're actually contributing to the lottery you want to win so badly. It's all tax money."

Someone else pointed out this was wrong and corrected you, but they didn't live in the US and couldn't really certain. You are right, "your're actually contributing to the lottery you want to win" but not by taxes... that just ignorant, lol its by purchasing a ticket.

I live in Texas, here is how the money for our state lottery works... research facts, stop making them up!

http://www.txlottery.org/expor...upporting_Education/ (http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Supporting_Education/)

If you meant... "The state lottery is a tax. The state takes about 35-40 cents out of every dollar bet on the lottery and redistributes the money as it sees fit." then work on making your point clearer. Thx, I'll try to stop now...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

SWJS
02-10-2010, 12:14 AM
*sigh* Okay, okay, let's just back up.

I believe we both got off on the wrong start.

Truth be told, I graduated High School in May 2009, and much of what I learned is already becoming fuzzy. I really should research my facts more, ecspecially since I'm a writer. I'll admit Economics wasn't my favorite class either, but I did learn.

After experiencing a family loss back in December, the stress hasn't exactly done wonders for my temper or my ego.

So I propose we start over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif *extends hand*

In order to get back on tack, I'll end with this statement:

I do not find the DLC a rip off, simply because it is fairly cheap.

SneakyStabz
02-10-2010, 12:56 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

So I propose we start over. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif *extends hand*

In order to get back on tack, I'll end with this statement:

I do not find the DLC a rip off, simply because it is fairly cheap.

I accept your truce! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

I can also accept the fact that you consider the DLC to be inexpensive, and as such, a good deal. Additionally, if what I perceive as a flaw is ok with you, its your opinion and your entitled to it. Though I might disagree, I will agree to disagree!

I also would like to apologize, I have a tendency to be over assertive and my comments often seem callous and condescending when making a point! Sometimes its intentional, other times it just comes off that way.

Hehe, I graduated college in 2005, Double Degree, Summa *** Laude 3.9 GPA. Bachelors in Finance and Accounting, with a minor and European studies. Economics was a favorite of mine, however, I suck at grammar and punctuation and to this day I put commas wherever making run sentences, much like this one!

And finally, I deeply regret your loss... And I mean that VERY sincerely. I lost my grandmother in September and can easily empathize with you there. And I would like to say sorry if I have contributed to your stress load lol!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SWJS
02-10-2010, 01:22 AM
As will I.

I've always had a tendency to bite someone's head off if I find their views to be ludicrous. I know they're entilted to an opinion, but some people just make me go "Duh, doy, dah, doy, derr! o_o". It's also a pet peeve of mine when Critics overrate or underrate a game, so it just kinda pushes my buttons when someone over-idolizes a game that is obviously lack-luster. But I do admit, I am a huge Destroy All Humans! fanboy, so it's usually the cause of an argument. I actually hate eing called a fanboy due to this nasty argument on youtube, I'd rather not talk about it. You can tell I have few friends and loathe society, heheh.

It happens to the best of us. God knows if I'd been standing next to a few people they would have ended up like poor Uberto Alberti.

My strongest skill is actuall grammar and the use of literary devices, surprise surprise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You can hardly tell, because I'm constantly making typos. The bloody things sabotage my sentences like gremlins.

Thank you for your concern, my respects go out to your grandmother. And don't worry about it. I'm getting into spats on the net all the time. I practically live for it, but most of the time I try to be rational. I fail. lol

But yeah, I respect the fact you believe the DLC was a rip off due to the fact that you have to replay the whole game. I sympathize.

TreFacTor
02-10-2010, 07:35 AM
@ SneakyStabz & EzioTheAssassin

http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr185/MINGO-04/Joker-Clapping.gif

loveboof
02-10-2010, 10:29 AM
If I ripped out a few pages from a book, sold it to you, and then a week later offered you the missing section for a small additional fee - you would not be too happy.

I think the whole concept of DLC is brilliant, but it shouldn't be used like this.

If you agree with this statement, then any price for the DLC is a rip off because it is an unreasonable extra cost for the content it offers.

SneakyStabz
02-10-2010, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by loveboof:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I ripped out a few pages from a book, sold it to you, and then a week later offered you the missing section for a small additional fee - you would not be too happy.

I think the whole concept of DLC is brilliant, but it shouldn't be used like this.

If you agree with this statement, then any price for the DLC is a rip off because it is an unreasonable extra cost for the content it offers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone is saying the DLC is a ripoff simply because it cost money. The reason it seems like "they ripped the pages out my book, only to sell it back to me later" is because, well selling me chapters 11 & 12 after I have read the whole book through chapters 13 & 14 seems like you intended to sell me an incomplete book the first time through. You know I will still want to read the missing chapters, and it seems like a scam to have to buy them after the fact.

To reiterate my complaints about the DLC...

Does adding chapters 11 & 12 after I've beat 13 & 14 make sense?
Does it appear that these chapters were removed from the original game and sold back to me later?
Should $3.99 content be replayable without starting the whole game over, should it last more than an hour?
Did they add the flying machine for fun, or so people could get the achievement with out starting over and without mission replay?
Did Ezio get the Apple back, or was it the twin that stabbed me and the monk that took it, cant replay to find out (I really cant remember, I dont think he got it back though, and what was the map for)?
I'll ask differently, if you think the DLC was a good deal please elaborate.
In YOUR opinion what would have made the DLC better?

Criticism, both positive and negative, helps Ubisoft to understand their customers likes and dislike better, which in turns helps them make better games in the future... I loved AC2, but I can still find flaws I would like to help them correct in their next release!

Grandmaster_Z
02-10-2010, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by TreFacTor:
@ SneakyStabz & EzioTheAssassin

http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr185/MINGO-04/Joker-Clapping.gif

LOOLLLLLL


that guy is boning jokers ear

SWJS
02-11-2010, 01:29 AM
Did Ezio get the Apple back, or was it the twin that stabbed me and the monk that took it, cant replay to find out (I really cant remember, I dont think he got it back though, and what was the map for)? Ezio does get the apple back. Battle of Forli and Bonfire of the Vanities are sequences 12 and 13. Therefore, they happen BEFORE the end of the game. We already know Ezio gets the apple back because he has it when he enters the Vatican. Therfore, the DLC aren't missing chapters. They're two random pages torn out of the book because the had no importance to the actual plot. The only things in the DLC are Ezio being robbed, helping a pretty woman, and killing a monk who's burning family heirlooms. They offer nothing toward the sory of Ezio going after Borgia, so what good would keeping them in have done? Random events that have nothing to do with Ezio's revenge on Borgia, and a game with a higher price. So Ubisoft decides yo take them out and offer them as very, very cheap DLC for anyone who wants a little extra backstory info/fun. If you miss the DLC, you aren't missing anything important. So how exactly is it a rip off? You don't need it to understand the story and it has no relevance to the plot, and it's being sold cheap. What's so evil about that? Nothing. It's just something extra to keep us entertained, like the extra content on Directors' Cuts. Only instead of costing more than the regular movie, AC2's directors' cuts cost far less.

SneakyStabz
02-11-2010, 02:24 AM
I have beat the game and am well aware of the fact the sequences are before end game, thats why they seem tore out!

And because you did NOT research your statement before posting here I must again correct you. Sadly I had to look to youtube instead of my game to find out though...

NO Ezio does NOT kill the monk or get the Apple back... DLC1 ends before this happens. Im sure he gets it back before the end of the game, since I had the Apple when I beat the game but until DLC2 we dont know how.

This brings up a point from another thread... If you play straight through the game with the DLC do you have to beat it before playing the DLC? Wouldnt make much since if you complete memory 11, lost the Apple in memory 12 and skipped to memory 14 and suddenly have the Apple back does it??

SWJS
02-11-2010, 02:43 AM
NO Ezio does NOT kill the monk or get the Apple back... DLC1 ends before this happens. Im sure he gets it back before the end of the game, since I had the Apple when I beat the game but until DLC2 we dont know how. If he doesn't get it back, then how does he have it when he uses it on the map in sequence 14?

This brings up a point from another thread... If you play straight through the game with the DLC do you have to beat it before playing the DLC? Wouldnt make much since if you complete memory 11, lost the Apple in memory 12 and skipped to memory 14 and suddenly have the Apple back does it?? Originally, the game skips from 11 to 14. At the end of eleven, Ezio is inducted into the Assassin order after he obtains the apple from Borgia. In 14, he walks into Mario's study and places the Apple on the pedastel, and loses it in his first fight with the Pope.

Therefore, Ezio does get the apple back from Savanrola, otherwise, the entire plot would no longer make sense.

When the DLC fills in sequences 12 and 13, the data is no longer corrupted, and you can and must play through them in order to reach sequence 14.

We already know what happens due to the events of sequence 14.

Ezio loses the Apple, Ezio gets it back. That's it. There's nothing else to the DLC. It's just an extra that has no relevance to the plot.

SneakyStabz
02-11-2010, 04:22 AM
Truce off!

Please READ, before you post, Clearly I stated.. NO Ezio does NOT kill the monk or get the Apple back... DLC1 ends before this happens. Im sure he gets it back before the end of the game, since I had the Apple when I beat the game but until DLC2 we dont know how.


Therefore, Ezio does get the apple back from Savanrola, otherwise, the entire plot would no longer make sense. How does he get the Apple back, you dont know and with out having DLC2 the plot doesnt make sence...


When the DLC fills in sequences 12 and 13, the data is no longer corrupted, and you can and must play through them in order to reach sequence 14. Is this FACT or your assumption, I get worried when you state things as fact!


Ezio loses the Apple, Ezio gets it back. That's it. There's nothing else to the DLC. It's just an extra that has no relevance to the plot. Up till now you have said how great the AC2 DLC was, yet now its trivial and irrelevant to the plot, additionally doesnt that directly contradict your statement about the plot not making sence with out chapter 13 where he gets the Apple back?

So far you argument has been to say other games added content was bland and boring, only added a few new weapons, tanks, rocket shooting helicopters, 2 entirely new story lines... but still sucked and should have been included at release. Now your saying that AC2 DLC was trivial, doesnt impact the plot at all but is still well worth the money and shouldn't have been included with release? No new weapons, outfits, tanks, or added storyline, but at $3.99 its a steal, cant replay it, it leaves a huge gap in the storyline but well worth it! Somehow, for a writer, I find your arguments weak!

OzDavis
02-11-2010, 05:19 AM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">When the DLC fills in sequences 12 and 13, the data is no longer corrupted, and you can and must play through them in order to reach sequence 14. Is this FACT or your assumption, I get worried when you state things as fact! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously, I can't speak for Sequence 13, but having played through the entire game from start to finish since buying the Forli DLC I can say this as fact:

After buying the first DLC you have to play through sequence 12 before you can progress to sequence 14.

After sequence 11 finishes you are dumped out of the animus like you are in the original (non-DLC) game.

Like before, Lucy asks if you want to take a break and Desmond demands to go back in "right now!".

Unlike before, you immediately go back into the animus, where you start off in Romany, near where you talk to Caterina and Machiavelli (sp?) outside the Forli walls at the start of the first memory in the DLC sequence.

After sequence 12 is complete, you then get dumped out to the animus loading screen with a conversation between Desmond, Shaun & Co. about how there is corrupt memory, only this time it is slightly amended compared to how it was originally.

When Desmond asks Shaun to fill in the blanks of what he's missing in the corrupt memories, all the chat Shaun gave in the original version that pertains to sequence 12 is (sensibly) omitted and he only talks about Savanarolla (sp?) taking control of Florence, the Bonfire of the Vanities and Rodrigo becoming Pope.

After this conversation you are then put back into the animus in the vicinity of Florence, as if you had just travelled there from the Mountains.

SneakyStabz
02-11-2010, 06:48 AM
Thank you Oz!

Grandmaster_Z
02-11-2010, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
Truce off!


lol

CEO_of_Abstergo
02-11-2010, 03:33 PM
Right, Oz's depiction is completely accurate...

On the points of this thread: I've played the disc game full-through with the missing sequences, then played the DLC chapter when it came out, and then played another game full-through with included sequence 12 DLC. I will play another full-through game when sequence 13 DLC comes out, making it 3 times.

Why? It's NOT because I enjoy playing the game full-through so many times - the first chapters where you are just running errands and assembling skills and weapons are quite a pain to redo by force a 2nd/3rd time even for someone who loves playing this game.

No, the reason I did this is because I desperately wanted to see closer to the FULL UN-CHOPPED STORY the new cutscenes in DLCs may provide. After my first play, I for one DID very much feel like chapters of my book were torn right out and I was thrown onto the last pages to read the ending. Back in November I was actually wondering what the heck was going on in the story with these "missing memories" and whether it was a plot device shoved in at cost of story just for practical release or profiteering DLC reasons.

The "missing memory" angle was not part of the original release storyline nor original relase plan. Another thread here has provided a link wherein Ubisoft Dev Mgmt clearly states this ALTERATION was the result of deadline pressure to release by xmas buying season. This is in fact the why on the DLC and missing memories in storyline.

Sure, you may say "hey, you got to the end, what does it matter if you missed steps getting there that were not plot-central." What is not central when it comes to full plotline? So many times in AC1 and AC2 did a plot angle seem like a subplot or side story completely incidental, only to turn out as connective and important to full plot portrayal? When I played again with DLC1 included, it did feel a little more corret and complete and I suspect it will not feel fully complete until DLC2 is put in.

My point is that this DLC scheme was done for market reasons by mgmt, not by the original design of the storywriters or developers. We did _in fact_ receive an alteration of a work with pieces taken out and sold back to us later. That's a fact, but my opinion is that it truly did FEEL when playing 1st time that some bait-switch removal was programmed into an otherwise crystal storyline sequence.

SneakyStabz
02-11-2010, 11:38 PM
Well put... I like the way you word things, very rational and level headedish lol. I wish I was as good at expressing my points on paper as you are!


Edit: I really like the break down on the conspiracy theorist's post!! Is it wrong that I still read it cause it makes me lol?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

CEO_of_Abstergo
02-12-2010, 09:31 AM
Thanks, bro. I'm a professional writer, that's my excuse for the always-long-winded posts, ha ha.

And yes, we should get a laugh out of reading the posts, from logical to the "crazy"- the whole point of being here is for fun, to talk about a game that's fun, that makes you think, which is also fun. :-)

SneakyStabz
02-12-2010, 01:03 PM
I get what hes trying to say, at least I think I do. I used my mouse to highlight sections and tried to make sentences as I was reading. But when you post a statement like that with only one "." being between yahoo and com, when I read it straight through it just makes me laugh about half way in.

And someone should suggest he give out email addresses using the PM system and not post it in the open forum... very bad idea. Im sure hes has already been signed up for the Jelly of the Month club or worse lol.

Anyways sorry to get OT there... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

OzDavis
02-13-2010, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by CEO_of_Abstergo:
Right, Oz's depiction is completely accurate... Thank you.... I try my best! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Wormy173
02-13-2010, 10:13 AM
Well, To decide whether the DLC is a rip off, you must make a simple choice.
Would you have had more fun or enjoyment if you had spent the money on a different item costing the same or a similar amount?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Enjoy your pondering.

SWJS
02-13-2010, 11:28 PM
How does he get the Apple back, you dont know and with out having DLC2 the plot doesnt make sence... Savanarola is a corrupt ruler. What do Assassins do to corrupt rulers and thieves? Exactly. Ezio goes to Florence, assassinates the monk, and gets the apple back. It's not that hard to figure out.
Up till now you have said how great the AC2 DLC was, yet now its trivial and irrelevant to the plot, additionally doesnt that directly contradict your statement about the plot not making sence with out chapter 13 where he gets the Apple back? I haven't said the DLC was "great," I said it wasn't a rip off. Why? Sequences 12 and 13 don't matter.

My statement was that sequence 14 would make no sense if Ezio randomly didn't have the apple. Your argument was that we don't know how he gets it back. In a game like AC2, it's really obvious how Ezio gets the apple back. Like any other tyranical leader, Savanarola will obviously fall to Ezio's blade.

We don't HAVE to have the DLC to understand the story. Ezio loses the Apple to Savanarola, but get's it back. That's it. It isn't relevant. It didn't need to be included. As for the GTA IV DLC, I said that the content should have been included in the original game. All their stories do is tell the original story from a completely differen't person's perspective. Their stories weren't new, just told in another way.

Funny. I believe many people asked for unlimited flying machine use, and recieved it. I also believe they recieved an extra half hour of gameplay, as well as a subplot to the main story. Yet people act as if they didn't get anything. They get something they really want, some extra gameplay, and a subplot, all for only $4, and it's the biggest ripoff in human history? GTA IV's DLC didn't add anything that the fans asked for, it was still GTA IV, with a couple things tacked on. GTA IV only had a few articles of clothing to choose from in the first place, and all of them sucked. How is it any better? And as I said before, there is no gap in the storyline. Nothing in the DLC is relevant to the main plot at all. The transistion from 11 to 14 goes smoothly.

Finally, I find your side of the argument to be ignorant and insulting. Instead of simply reading my post fully and thinking about it, you insist that your opinion is automatically better and that mine is stupid and weak. The claim that the DLC doesn't offer anything can't be backed up, as fans DID recieve something they wanted. If paying 4 measily dollars for a half hour of new playable content is so bank-breakingly horrible to you, then so be it, it's your opinion. I see it as a fair deal. Just because the first of two DLC doesn't include mission replayability doesn't make it a ripoff. What if Ubisoft decides to take yet another lesson from the GTA series and add the feature in with the final DLC? This is why that, in my mind, DLC 1 is not a rip off.

So yes, please do continue to be inconsiderate, selfish, and rude. No matter how many times you decide to use the "You fail as a writer." statement, it wont change my opinion.

silversnake4133
02-15-2010, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin: Savanarola is a corrupt ruler. What do Assassins do to corrupt rulers and thieves? Exactly. Ezio goes to Florence, assassinates the monk, and gets the apple back. It's not that hard to figure out.

First off, I'd just like to say that I'm impressed by how strongly you stick to your opinion. It's quite inspiring really, but on to the topic at hand. I'll start off by making an analogy. Let's just say for "hypothetical" reasons, Assassin's Creed II is a beautifully painted masterpiece of the landscape of Italy. About 15% of that picture is DLC, which includes the missing memories, plus the extra map sections and secret locations. For full price, people are able to buy a copy of this painting to have for however long they wish. While the person waits anxiously at the checkout counter for his or her painting, the merchant places the art work in a frame and wraps it with a luxurious fabric.

Barely able to contain him or herself, the consumer quickly retrieves the painting, replies with a hurried gratitude and rushes home. Once home, the consumer is able to contain his or her excitement long enough to carefully peel away the layers of fabric and wrapping materials only to discover once he or she holds up the painting a small, yet noticeable chunk is missing from the painting.

Outraged and rather embarrassed by his or her haste, the consumer rushes back to the merchant to question about the missing section. The merchant then informs the consumer that he is willing to give him or her the missing pieces for a MODEST fee.

Perplexed at first, the consumer leaves the merchant's store in a disgruntled manner. Upon returning home, the consumer examines the painting more closely to see that the section that is missing is off to a far corner of the painting. And while it is distracting, the end of the world will not occur that very moment or anytime in the near future. That is until he or she discovers that a very important landmark is partially featured in the painting, but is not fully detailed because of the missing chunk.

A few weeks pass before the consumer returns to the merchant with the extra fee needed to purchase the missing piece of the painting. However, during the transaction, the merchant only hands the consumer one-third of the missing piece. Confused the consumer questions the merchant of the whereabouts of the other two sections. The merchant answers by informing his customer that the other sections of the missing piece were lost in the shipping process and will require at least another month to send for new ones. By now the consumer is beyond flustered, but pays for the fragment anyway.

Eventually two months pass, and the consumer is finally able to finish putting together the painting. However, as he or she stops by a local cafe for a daily pick-me-up, the consumer learns that a member of a yacht club had recently purchased a copy of the same painting. Intrigued, the consumer eavesdrops on the conversation only to learn that the club member had reserved a copy of the painting upon its announcement, and for spending a little bit more than the consumer paid, had acquired not only the painting, but a section of the missing piece, a soundtrack of native music from the place depicted in the painting, a small picture book detailing each step of the painting's progress that was hand-written, signed and dated by the actual artist, and a small replica of the historical building that the missing content had otherwise displayed. With indescribable emotions running through his or her head, the consumer pays for the coffee and walks home, their eyes clouding in disbelief.

Wow that was long, but the point I'm trying to make is that while the DLC may be a small tidbit of the story, it is necessary to get the full "experience" that Ubisoft's developers constantly spouted this game would provide to players. I can understand that it's not ultimately required to get the plot, but in its vague mention via Shaun, it leaves too many questions unanswered for some players.


Funny. I believe many people asked for unlimited flying machine use, and recieved it. I also believe they recieved an extra half hour of gameplay, as well as a subplot to the main story. Yet people act as if they didn't get anything. They get something they really want, some extra gameplay, and a subplot, all for only $4, and it's the biggest ripoff in human history? GTA IV's DLC didn't add anything that the fans asked for, it was still GTA IV, with a couple things tacked on. GTA IV only had a few articles of clothing to choose from in the first place, and all of them sucked. How is it any better? And as I said before, there is no gap in the storyline. Nothing in the DLC is relevant to the main plot at all. The transistion from 11 to 14 goes smoothly.

I will say here that I did gripe about not being able to use the flying machine for more than one mission, but that's just because that sequence was so amazing and really complimented Ezio's free running. I just think that people say they didn't really get anything is because when people think of DLC, they usually think about extra content. Extra meaning that it was not part of the game, and would otherwise provide a more enriching "experience". In the case of ACII's DLC, it's bits and pieces of the game that as a previous poster commented "is still contained on the disk but requires a code or an online purchase to unlock".

This is where people get angry because they don't want to spend extra money for something that "is already on the disk" and should be playable from the get go. Common sense has taught me that people don't like to spend money. Even if they are spending it on something they really want or really need (food, clothing, utilities etc.) And even though $4 isn't "bank-breaking" it's still rather unnecessary, especially since we're paying extra for content that's already in the game's disk to begin with.

Side note: I find it funny that GTA is noted again. But then again, GTA's dlc isn't necessary to understanding the game's story or plot, they are optional extras that players can buy to either upgrade their character (cosmetically or status-wise) to enhance their gameplay or have more fun. ACII's dlc doesn't really do that, and to understand the story to its fullest extent, players would need to purchase not one, but two missing sequences, and the extra maps and secret locations aren't included in those memory sequence DLCs.

For a better understanding on DLCs please refer to this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downloadable_content

I also find it funny that you quoted Yahtzee. <I>In the words of Yahtzee Crowshaw: "Fans are clingy complaining dipspits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make."</I>.

I find it rather interesting that you did that because you're not only burning yourself with his quote, but you're also referencing a rather blunt critic that likes to point out a lot of flaws games (and their developers) exhibit. Granted, he does mention good things about the games he reviews, but he's mostly known for his humorous flaming and "trolling" of games. So the fact that you referenced him to back up your argument did have me scratching my head in confusion.

All in all, I respect your opinion and I'm glad that you don't mind spending extra to obtain missing pieces of the game. More power to you, and sincere condolences for your loss.

OzDavis
02-15-2010, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by silversnake4133:
In the case of ACII's DLC, it's bits and pieces of the game that as a previous poster commented "is still contained on the disk but requires a code or an online purchase to unlock". So, I was scratching my head over this claim the first time I read it, and here I am again wondering just how this equates with the half gig or so I downloaded in order to play through The Battle of Forli.

Yes, the statement is true as far as the Templar Lairs go, which were specifically designed to be used as "exclusive" content for the special editions and/or pre-order bonus content. However, as Patrice has been quoted elsewhere on this forum, it was always the plan for those three areas to eventually be made available to everyone, so it makes perfect sense for them to be on the disk with a code being required to access them.

However, as has been stated by the game producers, The Battle of Forli and The Bonfire of the Vanities were not included as part of the original game because there was no time to program them properly before the Xmas shopping release date (presumably imposed upon them by management).

So, to repeat the implication that all the DLC is already included on the disk is utterly ludicrous.

As for your comments on the original topic - whether or not the DLC is a rip-off - I find your arguments regarding the painting lend more to an objection of the entire concept of charging extra for DLC, rather than being specifically about AC2.

The full truth of the matter won't be apparent until after 'Vanities' is released, but personally, I haven't found 'Forli' to be anything but a cute extra that contains nothing crucial to the central story. The proof of this is largely in the fact that the tale of Ezio's pursuit of those that were responsible for the death of his father and brothers is complete without any of the DLC oreven the Templar Lairs for that matter!

I've read a lot of opinions in this thread using GTA4 DLC as a comparison in order to judge the value for money of the AC2 DLC. Not being a GTA player, much of that talk has gone over my head somewhat. However, I would like to introduce a similar example as an alternative comparison:

In terms of what it adds to the game, the DLC for Saint's Row 2 is very similar to that of Assassin's Creed 2. Each of the story additions to SR2 add approximately 30-60 minutes of game play time (depending on how good you are at the game) and contain storyline that is not crucial to the main plot of the game. As far as I can see, the only differences between them are the fact that SR2 DLC has achievements and is 800 Microsoft Points a pop!

So, given that example, AC2 DLC is clearly better value for money!

loveboof
02-15-2010, 09:44 AM
@silversnake: LOL, the 'checkout counter'?! is it fair to say you're not exactly a collector of high art? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Anyway, your analogy is much the same (although a lot longer) as my book one.

But I actually think DLC is a great idea in itself, but using it like this just feels like an unfair attempt to extort as much money as possible out of the same customers and fans who they rely on for their business. And if only people en masse were a little more savvy, or at least not such droning slaves to the consumerist materialism that has now become so irreversibly engrained, we might realise that we hold all the power in this relationship - like I said before, it is us who assign value to things. Simply accepting everything at face value really makes me concerned about our societal future development...

stewy234
02-15-2010, 10:20 AM
This is a great game and all, well worth the money but the thing thats annoying me is that when I bought AC2 on PS3 when it came out it was £40. The PC versin is £27 preordered from amazon.co.uk.

What I want to know is WHY are the people who own the PC version getting both DLC's and the templar hideouts with the game absolutly free? Surly because these dlc's were intended to be included in the game in the first place they should be free for consoles!

thebutcherhead
02-16-2010, 12:34 AM
Something I really don't understand is why these groups always form on video game publishers' forums that are compelled to conjure an in-game justification for every action made on part of the company. First off, it's an industry and they'll do whatever will grant them maximum profits for their IP.

It's a necessary step from a business standpoint and for making better video games.

That's not always a good thing, and when a game company uses a form of in game advertising that interrupts the main plot progression, customers on these forums should be outraged, not subserviantly rallying to the support of their marketing like it's going to give them some kind of special prize.

If that's supposed to give you a respectable opinion, you're wrong, it means you are uninteresting and lack the capacity for thought outside of sucking up to a corporation's marketing department, for who knows why.

And if you're just doing that for kicks, intentionally trying to frustrate other members on these forums into engaging in 2-3 pages of inconclusive debate, congratulations to you...

Now, I don't know where I'm going with this, but DLC within the chronological plot of a game is ridiculous and a bit of a slap in the face to customers who can't afford it.

Me personally, I'd buy the DLC whether it was in the game or after, just because I like AC, but DLC should always be outside of the story, not within. Arguing for this kind of thing just allows companies to make more money off games that should not exceed retail price.

This is an audacious example, but if companies released games in episodes, priced just a few bucks more for each piece, that increases the cost of what should be a £35.73, $60 game to £65, $100 which would be an outrageous scam to the customers. Not to say Ubisoft's going to do this, but again it was just an example and in-game advertising which has been used in other games opens the threshold to that.

Inclusion in a popular franchise like AC opens up the pandora's box for other companies to reap and epitomize as a model to their own pocket, making gaming more costly in areas where it shouldn't be.

CEO_of_Abstergo
02-16-2010, 07:02 AM
GREAT POST - GREAT POINTS!

I also do not understand taking the stand of "Ubi can do no wrong - the chapters ripped out and sold back to you later are fine, stop complaining, you're getting something 'extra'." BS, it's not extra, it's post-due plot & game segment, plain and simple. I'm sure even the writers are saddenned by the business-reality decision of extracting pieces of their work out of general release like they did for testing time/market constraints. Not the first time art suffers from its own business market.

I don't care about the price, I know they are ripping me off, but people this is not "optional or tangential extra episodic content" like DLC would be. This is missing pieces. I love the game especially for its storyline, and I tell ya [spoilers] the apple barely even appears in the story outside those missing memory chapters. Leo and the assassin gang peer at it in amazement, then all of the sudden <oops, game/story missing> you are popped into using it with the pope at end.

I say people who claim that ANY 2 chapters just before a climax "doesn't matter to a core story" are entitled to that rather suck-up opinion but it does not respect the simple concept of plot continuity and story completion. Such a claim is akin to expressing how you loved the movie where Luke Skywalker learns from Yoda something called 'the force' and then - flash - he is suddenly fighting Vader with it. You would say "Well, other stuff happened in between but, ya know, you get the point, he learned the force, there was more about that force and a humorous reference to Leia's genitals, but its unimportant details." Someone with that mentality probably passed literature and history classes with Cliff's Notes.

/End Rant

bokeef04
02-16-2010, 04:07 PM
but CEO, the point still stands that if they hadn't released them as DLC then you would never have known anything was missing, movies actually do it all the time, movies are the worse for it when being adapted from books, LotR didn't feature Tom Bombadil who i thought was a pretty major character, and an even better example was Eragon, the Elf lady leaves at the end where as she was meant to show him the way to the elves.

and you forget, if star wars never had the bits in between you mentioned then you would have never known, like i said above, only those who have read the books will know who Tom Bombadil is

what do you say on the army of 2 DLC, they added missions onto the end, is that better, because it actually changes the ending?

the basic thing still remains that some will see this as a rip off and some wont, I've accepted that this is going to happen and i can't change it, so i don't worry over it

Geinref
02-16-2010, 04:37 PM
I agree with bokeef but CEO does have good points! Though with my opinion i think that these two missing sequences make the game, characters and the story better! Ubisoft still did an amazing job piecing the whole story together without those two and i like how they covered it up using the animus and what not!!

Even better is that these two DLCS cost about the same price as a movie ticket! Though i think it adds more to what we know of AC2 and even adds more to the story, even if its just little things! Ubisoft could of easily ripped us off and put the price tag for each one up to 10 bucks, but they didn't! 2 - 3 hours for both DLC (not sure how long the bonfire of the vanities is going to be) for under 10 bucks is worth it then watching a movie!

I get to do some ace kicking with ezio again! I wonder what other cool little story bits the 2nd dlc will include!

SWJS
02-16-2010, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by FernieG:
I agree with bokeef but CEO does have good points! Though with my opinion i think that these two missing sequences make the game, characters and the story better! Ubisoft still did an amazing job piecing the whole story together without those two and i like how they covered it up using the animus and what not!!

Even better is that these two DLCS cost about the same price as a movie ticket! Though i think it adds more to what we know of AC2 and even adds more to the story, even if its just little things! Ubisoft could of easily ripped us off and put the price tag for each one up to 10 bucks, but they didn't! 2 - 3 hours for both DLC (not sure how long the bonfire of the vanities is going to be) for under 10 bucks is worth it then watching a movie!

I get to do some ace kicking with ezio again! I wonder what other cool little story bits the 2nd dlc will include! This http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

thebutcherhead
02-16-2010, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by bokeef04:
but CEO, the point still stands that if they hadn't released them as DLC then you would never have known anything was missing, movies actually do it all the time, movies are the worse for it when being adapted from books,

I don't know if its exactly correct to say it that way. The two memory blocks missing in the game kinda point out to the fact there's additional content that should have been included in the game.

I don't think it's so much the fact that it was extra content that was bothersome, but that it was directly advertised in-game.

Whether the content of the DLC is essential or not to the story is irrelevent, missing segments of gameplay set within the middle of a game makes the story feel incomplete regardless.

SWJS
02-16-2010, 10:10 PM
Whether or not the content of the DLC is essential or not to the story is irrelevent, missing segments of gameplay set within the middle of a game makes the story feel incomplete regardless.
How is it any different from the way the director of a movie removes content to keep a movie at around 2 hours in length, only to re-add it later in the director's cut?

Ubisoft basically did the exact same thing, only with a video game.

The only difference is that Ubisoft isn't selling the exact same thing with the new content for an extra $10. They were nice enough to lower the price.

And nobody would have ever even known they were missing anything until the DLC was announced anyway, so what's getting to play the content for the heck of it hurting?

Movie directors and game development companies do this stuff all the time, only Ubisoft cut the original price. The orgininal game works just fine without the content as well, so it's not like it completely destroyed the game.

All the movies that have content taken from them were great without the content. The content simply enhanced the experience and made it better, making me enjoy the movie even more. I believe it is no different with AC2, except that AC2's extra content is cheaper.

bokeef04
02-16-2010, 10:17 PM
agrees with EzioTheAssassin, i believe it's the same, just cheaper, seeing as directors cut you have to rebuy the whole movie for just those few scenes, the other thing movies do is bring out a "collectors edition" or special 2 disc edition

would you rather pay $10 for the 2 dlc or like $30 for the directors cut of a movie which could feature as little as 12 minutes extra footage?(also with the movie you have to rebuy the whole movie just for that small extra bit)


Originally posted by thebutcherhead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bokeef04:
but CEO, the point still stands that if they hadn't released them as DLC then you would never have known anything was missing, movies actually do it all the time, movies are the worse for it when being adapted from books,

I don't know if its exactly correct to say it that way. The two memory blocks missing in the game kinda point out to the fact there's additional content that should have been included in the game.

I don't think it's so much the fact that it was extra content that was bothersome, but that it was directly advertised in-game.

Whether the content of the DLC is essential or not to the story is irrelevent, missing segments of gameplay set within the middle of a game makes the story feel incomplete regardless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i misworded that a little, you knew you were missing something in that period, but you didn't know what exactly, and if it wasn't released as DLC then the missing sequences would have been seen as normal story progression

AgentValentine
02-16-2010, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by bokeef04:
agrees with EzioTheAssassin, i believe it's the same, just cheaper, seeing as directors cut you have to rebuy the whole movie for just those few scenes, the other thing movies do is bring out a "collectors edition" or special 2 disc edition

would you rather pay $10 for the 2 dlc or like $30 for the directors cut of a movie which could feature as little as 12 minutes extra footage?(also with the movie you have to rebuy the whole movie just for that small extra bit)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by thebutcherhead:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bokeef04:
but CEO, the point still stands that if they hadn't released them as DLC then you would never have known anything was missing, movies actually do it all the time, movies are the worse for it when being adapted from books,

I don't know if its exactly correct to say it that way. The two memory blocks missing in the game kinda point out to the fact there's additional content that should have been included in the game.

I don't think it's so much the fact that it was extra content that was bothersome, but that it was directly advertised in-game.

Whether the content of the DLC is essential or not to the story is irrelevent, missing segments of gameplay set within the middle of a game makes the story feel incomplete regardless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i misworded that a little, you knew you were missing something in that period, but you didn't know what exactly, and if it wasn't released as DLC then the missing sequences would have been seen as normal story progression </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Objection. They would have just had Rebecca skip to the next relevant memory.

The fact of the matter is that I've payed less money for stuff I can replay. To insist that Ubisoft is innocent of corporate nickel and diming is just ignorant.

That being said, I'm getting the DLC. I just wish I could replay it at will.

bokeef04
02-17-2010, 05:16 AM
uh, that was kinda my point, if they never released the DLC then those 2 memories would have stayed as "corrupted" on everyones and been seen as the "complete" game, seeing as how you get 100% synch without needing to do the 2 corrupted sequences

as EzioTheAssassin and I have been saying, it's no different to a directors cut of a movie except that it is cheaper, comparison:

AC2, 2 DLC = $10
movie = $30
directors cut = atleast $30
and you are rebuying the whole movie

and this is nothing new, Lucas arts did it with Force Unleashed, they are releasing the game again with a new exclusive to that edition map, 1 map, meaning if you want it you have to pay full price to rebuy the game

CEO_of_Abstergo
02-17-2010, 07:47 AM
To say "you wouldn't have noticed if DLC didn't let you know about the missing chapters" is ridiculous. You act like there was some seamless transition between memory 11 and 14, but there was not. There were blatant cutscenes in the story about MISSING/CORRUPTED MEMORIES. Then you see the DNA/database/maps are missing things all over the place. If that doesn't beat the viewer over the head with the point that pieces have been removed, I don't know what it does. I was left wondering whether there would be missions to fix the missing memories. I was left wondering WHY this was in the plot. It was not just side-notes given as DLC, it was pieces taken out and thus affecting the written story - specifically for sales/marketing reasons.

Like it was un-noticeable. Right. And Ubi is just perfect. If they made their deadlines and released the complete game with these chapters as originally planned, THEN maybe we would be getting real DLC in the form of EPILOGUES or ADDITIONS to the story -- not the pieces that were going to be in there but didn't due to deadlines.

loveboof
02-17-2010, 08:22 AM
This is so different to the editing in a movie - I can't believe people have actually let you get away with that comparison!

If I'm enjoying a film, and it isn't gratuitous for the plot, I don't care if it lasts 4 hours - editing to accommodate a dumb audience attention span is an appalling limitation of a great visual art form. That is why the directors often release a cut of their own - to fully realise their true vision. However, mostly editing is simply done to tidy up edges and cut out unnecessary distractions etc. Every film goes through it, as do all computer games.

Months can be spent editing films so as to best disguise any missing sections to create a smooth & seemless plotline. Can you imagine a film cutting to static with words popping up informing us of a missing section which will be available on DVD... no. (Actually Gremlins 2 comes to mind, but as a comedy a lot of usual movie conventions can be sidelined)

DLC is a completly different concept to editing, and it highlights essential differences between movies and games. Namely interactivity.

It would be very unusual for scenes to be specifically created for a movie DVD release in order to add to the experience!

Maybe movie editing could be equated with game patches, but not DLC.

This whole discussion is becoming really repetitive. Be blind to the reality of what was behind this DLC if you wish, but your monotonous support is really mind-numbing!

SWJS
02-17-2010, 06:03 PM
Like it was un-noticeable. Right. And Ubi is just perfect. If they made their deadlines and released the complete game with these chapters as originally planned, THEN maybe we would be getting real DLC in the form of EPILOGUES or ADDITIONS to the story -- not the pieces that were going to be in there but didn't due to deadlines. That's where Episodes comes in. It serves as an epilogue to AC2. The DLC, which is cheaper and smaller, just serves as an extra bit of gameplay to get us by. And Episodes will not only finish up Ezio's story, but it will feature multiplayer, which everyone has been asking for.

If you ask me the plot for Episodes is far more important to the trilogy than an hour or so of Ezio chasing after a tyranical monk.
If I'm enjoying a film, and it isn't gratuitous for the plot, I don't care if it lasts 4 hours - editing to accommodate a dumb audience attention span is an appalling limitation of a great visual art form. That is why the directors often release a cut of their own - to fully realise their true vision. However, mostly editing is simply done to tidy up edges and cut out unnecessary distractions etc. Every film goes through it, as do all computer games. The DLC was exactly that. An Unnecessary distraction. I personally don't care about Ezio getting the Apple stolen and getting it back. I'm more interested in him fighting the templars and facing Borgia. Savanarola wasn't even a templar, he was just there and happened to steal the Apple in order to use it for his own plans.
Months can be spent editing films so as to best disguise any missing sections to create a smooth & seemless plotline. Can you imagine a film cutting to static with words popping up informing us of a missing section which will be available on DVD... no. (Actually Gremlins 2 comes to mind, but as a comedy a lot of usual movie conventions can be sidelined) It takes years to develop a single game. Missing a deadline can cause major problems, so developers can just go back and polish it up willy nilly. If it has to be done, it has to be done.

As for the cutscene in AC2, it is justified thanks to the animus. AC1 did the exact same thing when Desmond was forced out of the animus and was forced to start over from the beginning. I guarentee you more people were excited to be going to Rome on their first playthrough, than finding out about the corrupted memory. Let's see, go to Forli and have a big fight and get the apple stole, or go to Rome and fight the Pope. Pope fight in Rome please. The DLC serves no other purpose than being extra gameplay. How would you feel if the exciting climax to a movie were about to come up, but the suddenly the hero remembers he dropped something and you had to watch and hour of him backtracking to find it? Exactly. It's better to take it out and add it back in later as an extra little treat. Games are basically interactive movies. There are very few differences between them, the biggest being the iteractivity of games, which is why they are more popular.


This whole discussion is becoming really repetitive. Be blind to the reality of what was behind this DLC if you wish, but your monotonous support is really mind-numbing! I love the way you word that last sentence. I feel like Neo in the Matrix when he has the choice of taking the red or blue pill.

There is no reality to the DLC. It's extra content. That's it.

SneakyStabz
02-17-2010, 10:58 PM
A fool and his money are soon parted, and when you sell some people a cup full of crap they are overly greatful for the cup!

When Ubi starts trying to release AC as an annual franchise and continually cuts simple features, or clips parts out to sell back to you I hope you continue to support their efforts with your cash! Keep paying for cut missions, maybe with AC2.5 they will sell you multiplayer for $60 and then every mission will be pay-for DLC's. Dont get upset, or make a stand as a consumer, when they cut mission replay to make deadlines... no, no, no congratulate them and give them reasons to keep up the "good work", crank those games out every year, who cares if they're glitchy and lack features. When they start clipping more missions encourage them to keep cutting out content and selling it back to you, I like it really! Here take more of my money, here have 60+tax, and 3.99+tax, and 4.99+tax, I'm a huge fan, pick me, take more money, as much as you want... If you honestly think that $3.99 is a good deal for 30 minutes of non-replayable content that was obviously cut out and sold back to you then you will be giving Ubisoft a new customer base to exploit! If your argument is "other game X did it" then you are simply supporting the practice, and will help it become an industry standard for sure.

Face facts, Ubisoft is losing money and is trying to crank out more games, more often, and trying to find more ways to squeeze money out of customers however they can. If you dont demand more for them then be prepared to get less in the future.

I gave up trying to make a point here, it reminds me of an old quote... something to the effect of

"A wise man should never argue with a fool, people at a distance wont be able to tell them apart!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

thebutcherhead
02-18-2010, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by SneakyStabz:
A fool and his money are soon parted, and when you sell some people a cup full of crap they are overly greatful for the cup!

When Ubi starts trying to release AC as an annual franchise and continually cuts simple features, or clips parts out to sell back to you I hope you continue to support their efforts with your cash! Keep paying for cut missions, maybe with AC2.5 they will sell you multiplayer for $60 and then every mission will be pay-for DLC's. Dont get upset, or make a stand as a consumer, when they cut mission replay to make deadlines... no, no, no congratulate them and give them reasons to keep up the "good work", crank those games out every year, who cares if they're glitchy and lack features. When they start clipping more missions encourage them to keep cutting out content and selling it back to you, I like it really! Here take more of my money, here have 60+tax, and 3.99+tax, and 4.99+tax, I'm a huge fan, pick me, take more money, as much as you want... If you honestly think that $3.99 is a good deal for 30 minutes of non-replayable content that was obviously cut out and sold back to you then you will be giving Ubisoft a new customer base to exploit! If your argument is "other game X did it" then you are simply supporting the practice, and will help it become an industry standard for sure.

Face facts, Ubisoft is losing money and is trying to crank out more games, more often, and trying to find more ways to squeeze money out of customers however they can. If you dont demand more for them then be prepared to get less in the future.

I gave up trying to make a point here, it reminds me of an old quote... something to the effect of

"A wise man should never argue with a fool, people at a distance wont be able to tell them apart!"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

The reality is it probably won't come to that, simply because people don't have the money an no one will spend that much money for any single game.

It may get a little worse, but eventually Ubi would start losing money for it. The idea of even releasing a single series, even AC, on an annual basis seems a little far-fetched to me. If they only regurgitate AC 2 with few improvements or new features included, the series could bore itself out with most of the average players. I mean, I wouldn't buy a halo game every year, but 2 I'm more likely to do.

SneakyStabz
02-18-2010, 12:20 AM
Well I dont care who you are when you plan to make 95 million dollars and end up losing 68 million that makes stockholders angry especially in a bad economy...
May 15, 2008 Stock Price Ä69.90
May 18, 2009 Stock Price Ä14.25
Today's Stock Price Ä9.80
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=UBI.PA

Another thread I intended to post that in...
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...024/m/3241056138/p/2 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/3241056138/p/2)

Edit: Im sure they wont go bankrupt anytime soon but Demand MOAR!!! from your $$$ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

SWJS
02-18-2010, 12:44 AM
"A wise man should never argue with a fool, people at a distance wont be able to tell them apart!"
So I'm a fool now is it? What exactly makes you so wise? Your overconfidence in your opinion? Your "excellent" monetary skills? The fact that you use insults and the same argument over and over to get a point across?

Anyone who would mistake 1 and one half hours of gameplay, complete with a new move, and new unlimited vehicle use, all for only the small, insignificant sum of $8, is an enormous fool.

The wiseman should know when to be greatful for what he is given, for asking for more can make him the bigger fool.

I can afford $8. $8 is nothing. It's petty change. $20? I might complain there. But $8 is nothing. And considering I got the special edition, that's saying something.

I believe that what ubisoft is giving me at the price they're giving me is fair. The DLC presented for every other game is twice as much, and most offer only skins, instead of gameplay. Believe what you want to, you're entitled to your opinion, but understand this: give ubisoft a hard time and demand more on AC2, it's DLC, and such. The less time they work on AC3 and the more they focus on AC2 and everything surrounding it, the more we'll pay for it.

I'm happy with AC2 and what it presents to me. I hope I'll feel the same with AC3.

SneakyStabz
02-18-2010, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
but understand this: give ubisoft a hard time and demand more on AC2, it's DLC, and such. The less time they work on AC3 and the more they focus on AC2 and everything surrounding it, the more we'll pay for it.


Wrong... its an economics thing, supply and demand... they will supply what we demand or suffer the consequences... when you settle and accept what they give you, you the consumer are setting the bar. IF you lower it they will gladly try and lower it again. IF they fail to deliver they will try harder or others will replace them. I expect more than an 1 of game time, and more than a one time through story line. Demand MOAR for your Money!!

SWJS
02-18-2010, 01:55 AM
Supply and Demand doesn't work that way. Suppliers will supply only when there is a demand for something. Video games are in popular demand right now, so the supplier is working to fulfill the demand for them. Supply and Demand is only relative to the product, so accesories don't count, UNLESS you are referring to the entire industry. However, the video game industry is centered on games and consoles. More attention is being put out toward the actual products, not their accessories. Developers are working to fill in the endless demand for video games. All games therefore have a deadline. If they fail to meet it, business goes sour. Countless companies are cranking out several games each few fiscal years, and it will continue to be that way until the demand for games goes down. Ubisoft is focusing on a single game, or franchise I should say, right now, and that is AC. They want to expand that franchise, and keep up with their quota. The demand for AC games is high since the franchise is doing successfully at the moment, so they are supplying the demand for AC games. The least of their worries are DLC. However, if they supply AC games too much, then they will fulfuill demand for them, but there will be too much supply and no more demand, and then Ubi will have extra that they can't get rid of. If they don't supply enough, then demand will be too high, and therefore you have a shortage. They have to keep the balance between supply and demand level. This is why if they spend all their time focusing on AC2 and DLC, supply for other games will go down, causing a shortage, losing even more money. Losing a couple customers isn't as bad as running out of something to sell, which will lose far more money. If you as a consumer are unsatisfied with a product, get a refund on it, or move on. It's that simple.

I myself don't want or need more for my money. I'm content with what I have.

If I ate more of what I wanted during dinner instead of eating what I needed, thn not only would I gain weight, but I would become full before finishing and waste the food, which is money down the drain.

We've got to learn to take what we get and be greatful for it. There's nothing wrong with the DLC and it's a very low price. Considering what you get with that price, it's a fair and reasonable bargain.

bokeef04
02-18-2010, 04:33 AM
look at the game like a movie if you can, could not the corruption of the data have been part of the plot? and what about the blatent jumping forward to a more relevant memory? what am i missing in the time between, like where did Leonardo go and what did he do, did he tell Ezio he was leaving or did he just leave? did Ezio see him off?


Loveboof
Months can be spent editing films so as to best disguise any missing sections to create a smooth & seemless plotline. Can you imagine a film cutting to static with words popping up informing us of a missing section which will be available on DVD... no. (Actually Gremlins 2 comes to mind, but as a comedy a lot of usual movie conventions can be sidelined)

explain how the ending of Eragon made any sense? Arya rides away at the end, when in the book she leads Eragon to the Elves, how is she meant to do that if she leaves him behind with the Dwarves at the end of the movie?


either way i grow weary of this, thats my opinion, you don't share, thats life, everyone is different, thats what makes life interesting, last 2 things i'm going to say are
1. you can't please everyone
2. no-one likes a whiner

CEO_of_Abstergo
02-18-2010, 07:12 AM
Guys, my momma always said -
"You end up with what you put up with"

For example, in other threads people are complaining and "whining" about the new DRM Ubi just sprung. Are you aware that in 2006-8 Ubi attempted this already with that "StarForce" system? Guess what? Ubi pulled the system in 2008 DUE TO CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS AND DISSATISFACTION.

If no one said a thing except "be happy you got a game at all" like smiling bovine consumers, it would still be there. Ubi is now trying it again with a new DRM. Will their paying customers let them know it sux, or should we all just say "ok, thanks" and BEND OVER??? The new DRM that requires online-to-play is not just PC-only, it is planned for consoles to cease reselling and renting markets and increase pure unit sales.

Of course businesses work in economic reasons. Heck, did you know even Cory May majored not in writing at Harvard, but was an Economics major? But companies can only get away with what their revenue base allows them - in this case us gamers.

There are two ways to provide DLC: extra content like has been the acceptable norm, or this new way of selling pieces that would otherwise be included in the full-price game.

You can either bend over and follow like a loyal sheep saying it's just fine to charge me extra money for pieces of the full-price game, or you can let it be known that this method is not appreciated until something is done about it. It's up to you.

Shutting up and putting up with bad practices is why our governments get away with what they do, and our businesses. To stand up and ***** is to do the opposite of be a complacent sheep. So go away sheep and graze on the grass you are forced to eat. I'll scream and yell until the message is heard and the "right thing" is done.

SneakyStabz
02-18-2010, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
We've got to learn to take what we get and be greatful for it. There's nothing wrong with the DLC and it's a very low price. Considering what you get with that price, it's a fair and reasonable bargain.

You accept what you want for you money... I'm gonna keep demanding more. All of your examples are misconstured and half logical. Like telling my that "You can save and replay from any point in AC2". Why do you think I would listen to you since you clearly stated before that you were not good in economics. What makes you think I'm calling you the "fool" is it because this happens to you often? "I'm getting into spats on the net all the time. I practically live for it, but most of the time I try to be rational. I fail. lol"

Yeah, you fail... most of your facts are made up on the spot... anything you state just reminds that Lottery Tickets are all just Tax Money!! Ignorant!! I stand by my original statement, Your argument is as failed as cutting mission replay...

loveboof
02-18-2010, 09:59 AM
I love the way you word that last sentence. I feel like Neo in the Matrix when he has the choice of taking the red or blue pill

Well I hate to say it, but you've obviously chosen the blue pill... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

____

The only reason I joined these ubi forums was AC1, so I consider myself to be as much of a fan as you guys. But why you feel the need to support decisions that clearly have a financial motive I don't understand.

I am not whining or screaming about anything. I am very comfortable with my opinion in this matter.

I have repeatedly said that it is the manner of presenting this DLC that I disapprove of, and that it is not the money which I object to (I have given more to homeless people on the street).

We should learn to be grateful for many things which we take for granted in this life, but I refuse to be grateful for underhand business decisions that seek to take advantage of us.

Wake up.

shimpaku
02-18-2010, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

And nobody would have ever even known they were missing anything until the DLC was announced anyway, so what's getting to play the content for the heck of it hurting?

Actually, thatís not true. I normally purchase the game guide book along with the games I purchase and I also did this when I purchased AC2. The AC2 game guide came out at the same time as AC2 did. I did not use the book as much as I thought I would simply for the fact that I thought it was horribly laid out, but be that as it may. On the right side edge of the right pages are listed the sequences of the game. When I first took a cursory look at it I could see that there were 14 sequences which, to me, would obviously imply that there were 14 sequences and not 12!

When I was very close to finishing sequence 11 I went to the book to take a quick look at what laid ahead for sequence 12.
Iím sure one can easily imagine the look of surprise and utter confusion that went over my face when I found out that sequence 12 and sequence 13 were not in the book as it went straight to sequence 14! Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could then easily surmise that this was due to either one of two things. Either it was all preplanned by Ubisoft or simply a matter of them rushing out the game to meet a deadline for the Christmas rush. I tend to believe the latter. Whichever of the two it may have been I feel it was unethical albeit I think that is a rather strong term to apply here. Letís just say that it was totally uncalled for and that Ubisoft dropped the ball and at the same time found a way to make more money on it! I donít think that this is a question as to how much the cost is for the two DLCís but simply a matter of principal and that it must even be done in the first place by those who purchased AC 2. When I shell out 50 to 60 dollars for a game I naturally it expect it to be complete, or am I asking for too much? I would tend to think not but thatís just silly old me. I should point out that Iím not online, but then again, I donít feel that should be of any concern to me when Iím purchasing a single player mode game. I have no interest whatsoever in playing any game against others online. Yes, I fully well realize that there are other pluses to being online so as to enable one to download various ďextrasĒ that a game may offer and in all likelihood Iíll eventually get my Xbox console online in the near future. However, with that said, I certainly do not feel that I should be obliged to be online to fully complete a game that Iíve already paid for and expected it to be complete as is. Make no mistake about it, I thoroughly enjoyed AC 2 and Iím looking forward to AC 3. However, when it comes out I think Iíll still have a bit of a bad taste in my mouth from what Ubisoft pulled off on their customers with AC 2.

thebutcherhead
02-19-2010, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by loveboof:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I love the way you word that last sentence. I feel like Neo in the Matrix when he has the choice of taking the red or blue pill

Well I hate to say it, but you've obviously chosen the blue pill... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

____

The only reason I joined these ubi forums was AC1, so I consider myself to be as much of a fan as you guys. But why you feel the need to support decisions that clearly have a financial motive I don't understand.

I am not whining or screaming about anything. I am very comfortable with my opinion in this matter.

I have repeatedly said that it is the manner of presenting this DLC that I disapprove of, and that it is not the money which I object to (I have given more to homeless people on the street).

We should learn to be grateful for many things which we take for granted in this life, but I refuse to be grateful for underhand business decisions that seek to take advantage of us.

Wake up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yay i agree

SWJS
02-19-2010, 01:53 AM
You accept what you want for you money... I'm gonna keep demanding more. All of your examples are misconstured and half logical. Like telling my that "You can save and replay from any point in AC2". Why do you think I would listen to you since you clearly stated before that you were not good in economics. What makes you think I'm calling you the "fool" is it because this happens to you often? "I'm getting into spats on the net all the time. I practically live for it, but most of the time I try to be rational. I fail. lol"
While on Xbox Live today, I took the liberty of comparing prices. Let's take a look.

AC2's DLC costs 300-400, or 560 MSP for Bonfire if you got the templair lairs. Less than or equal to an avatar clothing item.

A platinum hit is sold on XBL for 1200.

I checked the DLC prices for three games: GTA IV, Saints Row 2, and Force Unleashed.

Force Unleashed and SR2 both have DLC in the 800 MSP price range. GTA IV, on the other hand, has DLC that costs 1600, more than a platinum hit.

At a price of even 560 points, AC2's DLC remains the lowest price.

After buying AC2's DLC with a 4000 point card, I even had enough points left to buy the DLC for Halo 3 and SR2, as well as a couple other things, which I can't mind.

In my opinion, AC2's DLC is a steal.

So yes, continue to call me stupid, a fool, or whatever. I don't care. I bought AC2's DLC and had enough left over for other DLC, I've done the math, so I got my money's worth either way. As of now, I refuse to be a part of this argument any longer. Good day, and happy gaming, if there is such a thing anymore.